Mike Luckovich

By LuckoDull

January 23, 2007 07:56 AM | Link to this

And?

It’s kind of obvious that the reporter just wishes to talk about something with a little substance and he damn sure isn’t going to find anything serious in the democrat agenda.

Unless, of course, you are a dullard that gets excited over the smallest of trinkets being thrown your way.

While all the big promises, like cutting and running for example, get swept under the legislative rug.

It’s not like you sap liberals can do anything about it.

Might as well talk about her expensive, sheltered elitist clothing.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

In November the American people expressed serious concerns about Iraq and about Republican corruption and scandals. They did not say that they want us to lose this war. They did not say that they want us to allow Iraq to become a base for al-Qaeda to conduct global terrorist operations. They did not say that they would rather we fight the terrorists here at home. Until you see a poll that asks those questions, don’t use election results as an excuse to retreat.

By TW

January 23, 2007 08:08 AM | Link to this

LD – you’re absolutely right - bring back ‘The Monica Lewinsky Congress’! New blue dresses and fresh knee pads all around!

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 23, 2007 08:21 AM | Link to this

Excellent ‘toon, Mike. Sad but true. Reminds me of Condi buying Ferragamo’s while New Orleans was taking on water.

The MSM has let us down in recent years. They rolled over and played dead at the foot of this administration. To get real news we had to do some digging on our own. The result however, is a new generation of folks who realize that the best info doesn’t come from Disney, GE, Viacom, Time Warner or News Corp.

I’m pleased with the job Speaker Pelosi has done so far.She’s an excellent role model for our daughters, certainly, a much better example for our young women than the “axis of airheads” (Lindsey, Paris and Britney).

Ok, now all the trolls and twits can come out and attack.

By LMAO

January 23, 2007 08:23 AM | Link to this

Totally ridiculous. Tonight is the state of the union address and we get a cartoon about a dress.

Ummmm Mike, worst President ever, incompetent, true national diaster, complete failure, dumb. RING A BELL? There certainly is alot of material to work with here.

Did the White House pay you off? Were you threatened by Homeland security? Did Rove threaten you with his Prada’s?

This is an embarrassment for you and the AJC. An important day like today screams for a Bush ‘toon, you blew it.

I have cancelled my subscription to the AJC. Good-bye.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 08:24 AM | Link to this

TW - you really shouldn’t encourage our resident retard. nobody with any sense reads his drivel anyway. Here’s a hint. When you notice a line of Z’s at the bottom of a post, just scroll down and ignore it. You’ll get just as much out of it as if you’d read it.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 08:27 AM | Link to this

The following is a Letter to the Editor in today’s AJC. It wa written by Richard Croker. Excellent!

“There are ancient and respected rules of warfare that every second lieutenant should know by heart. Foremost among them are these two: Don’t start a war you can’t win, and never reinforce failure.

Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush has now violated both.”

By Mike

January 23, 2007 08:29 AM | Link to this

Wow Mikey draws another Democrat. Last time the Dem was walking on water. This time it is a criticism of the press.

Only a rabid partisan like Mikey can find no fault whatsoever with “his side”.

I cant wait for this rag to go out of business.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 08:30 AM | Link to this

Ugh. I watched Tony Snow spinning on both the Today Show and CNN already this morning….before my coffee even. The White House can spin all they want, it’s over for them. Americans don’t believe anything Bush says anymore. Not a thing.

But I am looking forward to watching Jim Webb give the response. He’s already smacked down Bush once in private. Can’t wait to see him do it on nationwide t.v.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 08:34 AM | Link to this

3 more Republican Senators come out against Bush’s “surge”.

Susan Collins (ME) and Norm Coleman (MN) - two lightweights - and John Warner of Virginia, who is hardly a lightweight. Warner was the former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Collins is worried about re-election, and Coleman can’t figure out what to think - one minute he’s criticizing Bush’s Iraq strategy, the next he’s condemning the Dems for opposing it. Pick a team, Norm. But Warner, that’s interesting. Warner is part of the old guard, and I mean that in a good way. He’s what Washington was - a bit nicer, a bit more genteel. The fact that he’s standing up to Bush is quite interesting. His opposition could have coattails among other Republicans looking for cover.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 08:35 AM | Link to this

Mike - if this “rag” went out of business where would you and your wingnut buddies spew your nonsense?

By @@

January 23, 2007 08:40 AM | Link to this

Ya’ know ml, it really is hard to take Pelosi seriously when her focus seems to be on “the drapes”.

What the hell was that red thing she wore at a press conference? A woman’s answer to the “power tie”?

I guess vague, er…vogue is in. It’s all the rage.

By Shawny

January 23, 2007 08:52 AM | Link to this

The MSM is blatently left leaning. It absolutely amazes me to listen to liberals attempt to define it otherwise, as is illustrated here in this cartoon, TW, Mrs. ‘zilla, et al.

How about analyzing the content of the 100 hours bills and detailing how little substance there really is, and how much will need to change to get it through the senate and signed by Georgie.

By @@

January 23, 2007 08:52 AM | Link to this

I have no problem with how John Warner(R) presented his opposition to Bush’s plan. I don’t agree with him, but his was a truly dignified, self-disciplined attempt towards bi-partisan agreement. There didn’t seem to be an attempt to discredit Bush.

The Democrats could learn a lot from “tried and true” politicians like Warner.

Republicans attend the “balls” while the Democrats go to “raves”.

By New Life Church

January 23, 2007 08:53 AM | Link to this

Mike, there’s not much of a chance that Atlanta’s conservative newspaper would hire Luckovich, is there?

By ed lorenzo

January 23, 2007 09:01 AM | Link to this

“First Lady, do you like the speech I will deliver tonight?”

“Only the last part”

“Which one.? The surge to victory? The one about democracy in the Middle East? The new tax cut? The Iran deal?” The China deal? The glorious future of our economy?”

“Nope. The part where you say Good Night and Good Luck!”

By Liberal Media/Smiberal Media

January 23, 2007 09:04 AM | Link to this

Why did the “liberal media” not expose the president’s military record while he implied his prowess as a military supporter?

Why did the “liberal media” not expose his dealings in the many failed companies in Texas that were simply fronts using his name for influence pedaling?

Why did the “liberal media” not contrast his and his family’s “moral shortcomings” to his opponents given his moralizing on their values?

Why did the “liberal media” not constantly report the irresponsibility of the large tax cuts while fighting a war?

Why did the “liberal media” not hammer the administration on all the information available to discount the rational for going to war?

Why did the “liberal media” not explain to the public at large the fascist inklings of the Patriot Act?

Why did the “liberal media” not expose the no-bid contracts going to the President’s and Vice-President’s cronies?

By rushncap

January 23, 2007 09:07 AM | Link to this

So the buzz is that El Chimpo will focus on the “domestic agenda” in tonight’s SotU. For once a smart move on the part of he speech writers. I wonder how slowly this had to be explained to him: “No, Georgie, the whole country save for a few idiots here and there hates the war, hates you for dragging us into it, and hates you for not listening to anyone with a brain. Let’s talk about something where your popularity does not rival that of your average venereal disease, kk?”

By Jesus

January 23, 2007 09:16 AM | Link to this

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

By Dusty

January 23, 2007 09:21 AM | Link to this

rushncap,

Just boil it down. Post “I hate Bush!”. That will cover all your “great” thoughts.

By SwiftVoter

January 23, 2007 09:25 AM | Link to this

We voted to stop an immoral and unjust war. We voted to support our troops by bringing those valiant warriors home.

The Democratic plan is to put an end to the senseless and ill-conceived war perpetrated by those who have personally and historically prospered through the use of ‘intelligence’ and oil.

We are saying it again—HELL NO, WON’T GO!!! get it?

By Nomad

January 23, 2007 09:27 AM | Link to this

New Life Church - Atlanta has a conservative newspaper? Your kidding right?

NOMAD

By candide

January 23, 2007 09:37 AM | Link to this

lEAVE THE FRUMPINESS TO REPUBLICANS.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 09:40 AM | Link to this

It’s not a matter of hating Bush. I don’t really hate anyone except maybe Osama. Remember him? Bush doesn’t. As I said it’s not a matter of hating Bush. It’s a matter of doing everything within our power to rid our country of someone who is tearing it down. It just so ahppens that it’s Bush.

By w00t

January 23, 2007 09:40 AM | Link to this

Bush is teh sux0rz!

“The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, released on the eve of the speech, found only 34 percent of respondents approved of Bush’s job performance while 63 percent disapproved.”

How does it feel to be in the minority wingnuts?

When he leaves office, we get to thank people like you for helping ruin our country. Though, we can do that now!

By Dusty

January 23, 2007 09:41 AM | Link to this

Liberal Media/flunkie,

You listed just about everything the liberal media has already tried.

Remember the PHONY war records fiasco? George Bush was a pilot in the National Guard whether you like it or not.

There are no raging morality conflicts in the Bush family. Maybe you were thinking of Clinton.

“Failed business”? Is Bush also responsible For every failed business in the country? NO and he’s not responsible in Texas either.

Bush, Congress, Tony Blair all saw the same information on Iraq. They came to the same conclusions. I suppose you think YOU should have seen them too.

The country’s economy is doing well under tax cuts. Guess you hadn’t noticed.

The Patriot Act is an effort to protect this country. How would you protect the country from terrorists? Run?

In other words, you are presenting the far left propaganda word for word. Try supporting this country’s leader for a change. He is OUR ELECTED LEADER in case you have forgotten.

By rushncap

January 23, 2007 09:44 AM | Link to this

Dusty, just boil it all down. Post “I hate rushncap”. That will cover all your “great” thoughts.

By LMAO

January 23, 2007 09:46 AM | Link to this

Great idea Jesus, IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

And I mean NOW. Tonight.

We have both Houses of Congress gathering in the same building tonight. Lets start the evening off with the House voting to impeach Bush! Pelosi can show off her new Prada boots then give W the boot. Bush wears Nancy’s Prada.

Then hand it over to the Senate sitting right across the aisle and THROW THE INCOMPETENT BUM OUT!!!

Think of the children.

By Buy Danish

January 23, 2007 09:47 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

Idiot rushncap believes that Bush creates Al Qaeda terrorists, refusing to face the fact that it is the ideology of IslamoFascism, just as it was the ideology of Nazism, that threatens our very existence as a civilization.

They pretend that if not for Bush, there’d be no Al Qaeda in Iraq. They are delusional in their bizarre theory that Al Qaeda magically stayed out of that country, but infiltrated Spain, the U.K., France, the U.S. and other places which have been attacked, or where attacks have been foiled.

Juveniles that they are, perhaps reality is just too frightening for them. It’s much more comforting to worry about imaginary monsters under their bed than face the real monster of Islamofascism.

By Truthman

January 23, 2007 09:52 AM | Link to this

War is bad, Peace is good! Never use plastic When you can use wood.

Be kind to strangers, Give good jobs to vets. Recycle glass bottles, Spay, neuter your pets!

Argue with that, neo-conmen and women!

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 09:53 AM | Link to this

Hillary’s in. Well, whoopty-doo.

Forgive me, but aside from huge money and name recognition, which is all usually swell, and as much as I’d like to see the Democrats take the White House, and as badly as the US could use more women holding important public offices, and while I’d enjoy being proven wrong… let’s look at the basic math.

Everybody must surely realize that 30 to 40 percent of this country — the same hard-skulled core of lunatics who still support our Criminal-in-Chief — will simply never, ever vote for Hillary Clinton.

Of the remainder who might vote for Hillary, at least half were opposed to the war from the outset. Remember, the Iraq War was never particularly popular; Zogby figured 42% of the US was opposed before the first bomb ever fell; most of these, obviously, were Democrats. And Hillary, these early war opponents will remember, was an active, enthusiastic accomplice to the crime.

If these numbers are even close, then Hillary has a maximum of roughly 35% of the electorate who could conceivably support her with gusto.

In short: if Hillary wins the nomination, the Democrats just ain’t likely to win the White House in 2008.

By LuckoDull

January 23, 2007 09:57 AM | Link to this

Your Brain: Bush saying America will win in Iraq, defeating the terrorists.

Your Brain On Drugs: Liberals and RINOs freaking all the way out after being told America will win in Iraq.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 09:59 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish - Saddam was a ruthless dictator and deserves to be dead but at least he was capable of keeping Al Qaeda out of Iraq. If you believe that Saddam and Osama had anything resembling a partnership I have some land I’d like sell you just south of Miami.

By Jesus

January 23, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

IMPEACH BUSH TONIGHT!!!

By Liberal Media/Smiberal Media

January 23, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

Dusty - You are one slow witted kool aid drinker.

Hope you don’t procreate.

By getalife

January 23, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

She did a great job.

Another defeat for the gop.

They whined like they do here.

By @@

January 23, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

The Democrats’ response to the SoTU is in the works:

Democrats have been treading carefully around several traps in the run-up to Webb’s official response, which he will deliver from the Capitol’s paneled Mansfield Room. Party leaders gave him an outline of what it should include. “I pretty much decided to write it myself, but with the understanding that I am speaking for the Democratic Party,” Webb said.

Whether to continue funding the war and Iraqi reconstruction is perhaps the most prickly question for Democrats.

“I do not intend to deliver a particularly partisan speech,” Webb said.

Where’s the party? Do you leftists have parties?

I’m sending Bush an invitation to my party. Theme? “Truth or Consequences”.

The Speech George Bush Should Make Tuesday Night

Now there’s the truth you wanna hear, and the truth you don’t.

I guess the leftists will be retiring early.

By Dusty

January 23, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

rushncap,

you offer no support for this country other than trying to tear it apart with warped criticisms. I do not know you personally but I do despise the anti-American thoughts you post here. I am not filled with hate as you seem to be. That is the big difference betweeen us.

You present hate for Pres. Bush (three times in one paragraph). I hate your unfounded criticisms. You cannot make unjust statements about the leader of our “national family” without hurting the “family”. I do not like that and will continue to protest your detestable rhetoric.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Just when you think there is nothing fun to poke at the W, Rove and Co. they roll out the red carpet out for you.

Of course the whole of the W, Rove and Co would have you believe that everyone’s aghast in anticipation of the W’s forthcoming “State of the Union” speechifying.

Okay admit it. Raise your hands high out there: how many of you are planning your SotU speech party? Picked up your wide screen 1080 HD flat panel monster screen television just for the occasion?

Roll out the invitations. Invite your friends over. Bust out the cold cuts, chips & dip. Get that 30 pack of brews for your pals and belly up. The W, Rove and Co never disappoints. Why, they are about to roll out a whole “drawer full of diamonds” for us, and you are not going to want to miss it.

Ah, a drawer full of diamonds. The laughter is telling, no?

By getalife

January 23, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

crusty-the clown,

Blind obedience and leader worship is patriotic….

(if you live in North Korea).

By w00t

January 23, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

Dusty, let me see if I can explain this to you…

You have to understand that people are upset with the war in Iraq for a few reasons. The mains ones being: the American people were lied to about the justification for the war, the cost of the war has spiraled out of control with some estimates as high as One Trillion Dollars, and there has been needless loss of life. Needless, because Iraq was not the answer to the war on terror, Afghanistan was.

Imagine your neighborhood. Now imagine that two streets over is this one house that doesn’t conform to all your Homeowner’s Association’s rules and laws. The paint color is not to specification, the lawn isn’t always mowed, etc. However, for the most part the homeowner, we’ll call him Sam, doesn’t bother anyone. He just has interesting tastes. Now, you being the Homeowner’s Association president does not approve of the way Sam takes care of his house. So you send letter’s to Sam saying, “Hey you need to do something about your lawn, and the color of your house.” Sam, pretty much ignores you, but he lets some Association members tour the house to check things out and to see if they can convince Sam to change his ways. This isn’t moving fast enough for you though. Sam really isn’t doing anything wrong, so you think to yourself, “How can I run Sam out of the neighborhood?”

You decide that you are going to hold a homeowner’s association meeting and tell them that you think Sam is a drug dealer and is producing Meth in his home. Pretty much everyone in the meeting doesn’t believe you and walks out. However, your next-door neighbor goes along with you because you play on the same tennis team with him. So you call the police and get Sam arrested and taken away from his home. So now the home is abandoned, the homeless, drug users, and pretty much crazy people start to move into the home and trash it. You try to set the house up as a rental, but the person who is renting it refuses to clean up the mess that has been made by the homeless and drug dealers. The renter even tells you that he gets along with some of the homeless and drug dealers. You eventually learn that while Sam may have had drugs in the past, he has been clean for quite some time. The other homeowner’s tell you “We told you so.”

To be Continued…

By w00t

January 23, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

following previous post…

What else can you do you think to yourself. You decide that you are going to help pay for the house, fix it up, and hope to get rid of the groups of people holding the house hostage. You tell your Wife, or husband and kids that of the 30 percent that you save for retirement, college, and healthcare, etc that nearly 60 percent of that will be spent to help save Sam’s old house. You tell them that it will only be for about a year that you have to “sacrifice” to help pay for Sam’s house and fix it up. Well, over four years have gone by, Sam’s house is still a wreck, your family has gone into massive amounts of debt, your retirement, college, and savings are nearly wiped out, and even your own house is suffering from neglect. Your Wife and Kids are mad at you for squandering away their money. Now you have to work till your 90 to pay off your debts, your kids can’t go to college that you promised them, and Sam’s house is still a wreck. Your neighbors and own family feel betrayed and lied too, how can they ever trust you again. Sam never let his house look like that, or let homeless people live there.

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

January 23, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

Neocons, NeoNazi’s, and NeoNuts. Oh My!

Neocon: Watching Dusty exclaim the virtuous “I Can Do No Wrong” Bush, reminds me of the monnies when they talked about Reverend Moon, and the Scientologist as they discuss screwball book author L. Ron Hubbard.

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

NeoNazi: And the Neocon Nanny believes Al Qaeda was in Iraq? WTF? I mean get real NannyKins, They didn’t dare set up shop in Iraq when Saddam was in power, or they would be arrested and most likely killed. Of course after America attacked Iraq, the good ol’ boys of Al Qaeda saw Iraq as the perfect place to recruit new mad bombers from. Heil Bush!

NeoNut: And Dullard Andy the waste worm. How can you win against terrorism in Iraq (or any one country) when these terrorist cells are now spread throughout many many countrys in the world? If Iraq was the only place the terrorist were, then yes we might could win. You are so pathetically unrealistic. Military tactics are obviously not one of your skills.

PNAC “See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don’t attack each other. Free nations don’t develop weapons of mass destruction.” George W. Bush — Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

By Dusty

January 23, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

blackadder,

Why don’t you wait until you hear the President’s speech before you try to tear it apart? Maybe you have already planned your anti-Bush party so why wait for the speech.

If you think the response of a room full of liberal reporters is worth mentioning, how about a report from the via-sattelite terrorist cell. They seem to think along the same lines, just as you do. And you know your lines very well.

By who_really_cares_anyway?

January 23, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

Perfect commentary.

Instead of concentrating on the substance of what Speaker Pelosi is doing, the press is more interested in what she’s wearing.

Why is it we weren’t overly concerned with Hastert’s, Fisk’s, and Gingrich’s attire?

Uh…could it be the “booby factor?” Who CARES what the woman is wearing…we wouldn’t keep a running critique of what suits the men are wearing!

Parity!

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

Dusty - as much as you hate to admit it the fact of the matter is that not agreeing with the president (no matter who it is) DOES NOT equate to being anti-American.

With your stand on the subject I can only assume that you still respected Clinton while he was dealing with his sex scandal.

By Quote of the Day

January 23, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. -Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary

By Bushisms

January 23, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

“The best way to defeat the totalitarian of hate is with an ideology of hope — an ideology of hate — excuse me —with an ideology of hope.” —George W. Bush, Fort Benning, Ga., Jan. 11, 2007

I’ve decided that Bush doesn’t misspeak. The misspeak comes when he tries to correct himself. The line “an ideology of hate” was what he REALLY thinks.

By Talon News

January 23, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

Hi, I haven’t been here in a while but I have some inside information about Bush’s speech tonight. It seems they’re having some trouble.

They have been at it for hours folks. Bush has been practicing one line of his speech over and over. He just can’t get it right. Karl is having fits.

When it comes to a point in the speech where Bush is supposed to say “I’m the decider”, it keeps coming out “I’m the deciderer.”

They are thinking of dubbing that part.

Poor Karl, he needs a hug about now.

Jeff…O~O

By regulator

January 23, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

Dusty, Bush was in fact a member of the Alabama Air National Guard, the only problem was he didn’t show up for the last two years of his service. Its funny that we can find and look at the service records of R.E Lee and U.S. Grant, but not Bush, you’re an idiot lemming.

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

January 23, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

From HomeGrown Insecurity:

Unders Terms of the Patriot Act, the following people are to be considered potential Domestic Terrorist and Dissenters against the government. They are to be brought in for questioning along with any known accomplices.

Delaware
• George Read • Caesar Rodney • Thomas McKean

Pennsylvania
• George Clymer • Benjamin Franklin • Robert Morris • John Morton • Benjamin Rush • George Ross • James Smith • James Wilson • George Taylor

Massachusetts
• John Adams • Samuel Adams • John Hancock • Robert Treat Paine • Elbridge Gerry

New Hampshire
• Josiah Bartlett • William Whipple • Matthew Thornton

Rhode Island
• Stephen Hopkins • William Ellery

New York
• Lewis Morris • Philip Livingston • Francis Lewis • William Floyd

Georgia
• Button Gwinnett • Lyman Hall • George Walton

Virginia
• Richard Henry Lee • Francis Lightfoot Lee • Carter Braxton • Benjamin Harrison • Thomas Jefferson • George Wythe • Thomas Nelson, Jr.

North Carolina
• William Hooper • John Penn • Joseph Hewes

South Carolina
• Edward Rutledge • Arthur Middleton • Thomas Lynch, Jr. • Thomas Heyward, Jr.

New Jersey
• Abraham Clark • John Hart • Francis Hopkinson • Richard Stockton • John Witherspoon

Connecticut
• Samuel Huntington • Roger Sherman • William Williams • Oliver Wolcott

Maryland
• Charles Carroll • Samuel Chase • Thomas Stone • William Paca

=========

In addition the following people are to be brought in for participating in Domestic terrorism by leading the actions of what is now called “The Boston Tea Party”. They are to be arrested immediatly and held until a military tribunal can convict — err grant them trial.

Samuel Adams John Hancock John Adams

=========

By Dusty

January 23, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

Blackadder,

I am saying that your constant prejudicial statements against the President of the United States are exactly what our enemies want to hear. In that way you are definitely working against the country which is know as ANTI-AMERICANISM. An honest statement of disagreement is different from rash propaganda political statements. You are giving us the last.

As to Clinton, I saw his charisma and efforts to copy Kennedy. But his loss of morality (Lewinsky) and his lying under oath left the presidency in tatters. Your party will do well to drop Hillary as the smell still exists from the Clinton administration.

By Truthman

January 23, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

Gosh, you mean if we win in Iraq ALL Terrorism against ‘Murca” will stop?

Gee, I wish I had known that all along - that Iraq was/is the hub of all anti-American terrorism.

Silly me!! I thought it was our intransigent support of all thing Israeli because, you know, they ARE the chosen people according to some god. And we “Murcans” are always on the side of god (which god, I don’t know!).

By Midori

January 23, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

speaking of a presidency in “tatters”

Bush faces angry, dissatisfied electorate in speech

WASHINGTON (CNN) — When he gives his sixth State of the Union address Tuesday evening, President Bush will be facing an angry citizenry dissatisfied with his leadership by a 2-to-1 ratio.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, released on the eve of the speech, found only 34 percent of respondents approved of Bush’s job performance while 63 percent disapproved.

Two-thirds of respondents say that Bush has done something to make them angry — a figure that has grown six points since last year and 16 points since Bush’s State of the Union in 2004.

Fifty-five percent of respondents said Bush’s presidency is a failure, and 51 percent said they trust Bush less than they trusted his predecessor in the Oval Office, Bill Clinton.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

Dusty - I’m not tearing anything apart. I was ridiculing what Tony Snowjob had to say about it. I’m also remembering Bush’s last few SOTU addresses. Not a lot of hope in this one when he is now so far down in the polls there isn’t a rope long enough to save him.

Remember yellow cake? Yeah I’m not too hopeful that what he says will be relevant.

By New Life Church

January 23, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

BJ vs 100,000 human beings killed in a senseless war.

Lying about BJ vs Lying about at war that is killing thousands of human beings.

You Republicans and your twisted morals, sickening.

By Paul

January 23, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

Twice I’ve heard Sen Obama interviewed. Both times he spoke of matters of faith. He also said he had little use for partisan namecalling in discussions. In one interview he specifically pointed at elements in his own party.

If he does secure the nomination, do you think members of his party will follow his preferences? I could have asked some of the bloggers here but I really didn’t want to have to sift through the “on topic” responses.

BTW - I see “Jesus” is here again? Does this mean we’ve experienced the second coming? So we’ll never hear from him (small or capital “H” - take your pick) again? Or, if I’m pronouncing it wrong, why would he attack a President who’s not really doing much from keeping him on the other side of the southern border?

By Dusty

January 23, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

regulator,

If nobody can find Bush’s military records, how do you know all about them?

I guess he was a pilot flying around in National Guard planes but nobody knows a thing about it.

Robert E. Lee and Grant were Generals in the military. Their records were probably kept a little more carefully than a pilot in the National Guard. What is your military record, by the way, leftie? You are so interested in military records. I was just wondering.

By w00t

January 23, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

Dusty, come back to reality, almost 70% of the country has.

It’s ok, you can let go of your Bush Teddy-bear at night. You’re not going to be looked down on by your friends and family if you have some questions about the president and the war in Iraq. That’s what makes this country so great.

What do you think you’re going to get from supporting the president? Is there something that we don’t know about? Are we going to win a million dollars? Is the county going to get back its One Trillion Dollars it blew on Iraq?

You do understand that the Bush administration is barrowing money against your children and your grandchildren?

By Paul

January 23, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

I see the jury for the Scooter Libby (BTW - what grown man carries the nickname “Scooter”?) trial. I also see no where in the charges is he charged with revealing the name of a covert agent in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

I seem to recall there were quite a group of people on this forum who ripped into the President and Administration for “outing” a covert agent, which was vindictive, retaliatory and could lead to the unraveling of covert operations, put current covert agents in danger of torture and death and conceivably cause the end of our way of life.

Could someone please explain to me why Scooter wasn’t charged with this heinous crime?

By SwiftVoter

January 23, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

He is our defective leader (appointed, not elected).

He cut and ran from Vietnam service, he cut and ran from the National Guard, he cut and ran from Osama in Afghanistan, he cut and ran from Sadr in Iraq.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

By Dusty

January 23, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

Woot,

There you are blowing hot air again. Did you know that I worry about our country because I love it? If you want to respect your country according to the polls, then go ahead and let them think for you. I go with what I find is right, ethically and morally along with patriotism.

If you don’t like my standards, too bad. I’m not crazy about yours. But slip on down there with SwiftVoter and put out some more propaganda. He is so backwards he thinks the president is a liberal “cut’n’runner”. Join him in his ignorance and share it together.

By Paul

January 23, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

Blackadder

Wow. I think that’s the shortest answer Sen Biden has ever given.

He’s not someone I’d take as a good source - tends a bit to hyperbole - “The Joint Chiefs of Staff don’t think the Vice President knows what he’s talking about.” I hope he’s more circumspect in the primaries or a lot of people will quickly write him off.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

I ask the Bush supporters the same question:

Name me one single time Cheney has been correct about Iraq.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Dusty - you don’t have a monopoly on worrying about our country. We all worry about our country. Why do you think we’re so critical of Bush for tearing apart?

Can you name the good he’s done? Be honest. Name only things that are good for EVERY American.

By w00t

January 23, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

Ok then Dusty, then do you care what the rest of the World thinks about your country? Or do you think they are all wrong too?

“The World Service survey, conducted in 25 nations including the US, found that three in four respondents disapproved of how Washington had dealt with Iraq.”

Dusty, you have to understand that the Earth isn’t for all of the United States. We have to play nice with other countries too. We do not seem to be doing a good job of that right now.

Like I’ve said before, this country is FOR THE PEOPLE, not for the people in power. So, I think the polls tell you alot on what the people are thinking. For now they are saying they are tired of Bush and his goons.

By Glenn

January 23, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

The Living Brain will address the Nation this very evening. Bushie. Note well: The Words. Words that 50 of the brightest Republican minds could conjure up. The pronunciation of those words as they effortlessly and smoothly roll off the forked tongue. The Delivery. Sharp, clear, grammatically perfect. Not a hint of hillbillyism or even Texanese.

Turn off the sound for a moment and observe. The Face. The sharply chiseled face of a Mongol chiefton. A Leader, a Decider, a Cheerleader. The Ears. Ears pointed like some magnificent, fabled, soaring, prehistoric bird of prey. The Eyes. Eyes deeply set neath brows so thick and lustrous. Eyes that display a mirrored reflection of his mandatory stay in a Harris County Halfway House. Empty, unseeing eyes. Eyes that witnessed nothing in a lifetime of personal failures. The Lips. Lips that have hissed forth a lifetime of lies.

That Brain. A brain long ago dissipated and rendered senseless by years of gross alcohol abuse and later hard-drug use. The Hands. Not so much hands as they are talons. Talons designed for one thing only: grabbing all the greed and false glory his family’s money has placed at his disposal. This, then, is Your Leader. A nation’s Living Legend. Cheerleaders of the future will adoringly shout his name. Sis-boom-bah.

By w00t

January 23, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

Dust, just in case you didn’t read this..

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-blogs/ajc/luckovich/entries/2007/01/23/therealstory.html#comment-954479

Let me know what you think.

By Paul

January 23, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

BlackAdder

Well, let’s see… VP Cheney said Saddam was a really bad man. Check. He violated the UN. Check. The UN was reluctant to take effective action. Check. The calls for 50,000 body bags for coalition forces were way off target. Check.

But after that there aren’t too many examples that readily come to mind…

My earlier point was, lots of Americans weren’t too impressed with Sen Biden during the Supreme Court nomination hearings. I think a lot of the country is pretty sick of partisanship - which can boost Obama and cause Democrats problems on other levels if Pelosi doesn’t return to her pledge for cooperation. A lot of senior officers were midlevel when Cheney was SecDef - many are now quite senior and had a great deal of interaction with him during their careers. He, like exSecDef Rumsfield, still is the source of respect among quite a number of officers (discounting, of course, the record on Iraq).

By Truthman

January 23, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

You cannot love America and support the Chimperor. It’s that simple!!

You can SAY you love America, but if you support illegal wars, treason (outing CIA operatives, even the Chimperor’s father says that’s treason), gay-bashing, destruction of our environment, keeping the minimum wage at $5.15, and believing that your god is the only one that’s right…then you really don’t love America!!!

Love Bush = Hatred of the America of our forefathers.

Love Bush = the Amerika of slavery and white supremacy!!

Love Bush = lack of education and hatred of public education

Love Bush = killing in the name of a perverse god!!

You cannot love America and support the Chimperor! It’s that simple!

By Catalyst

January 23, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

To WooT;

Truth is Sam has done some very bad things in his past. He’d done more than just not cut the grass and have questionable taste. He had attacked his neighbor a few years ago. It seems old Sam had decided that his yard just wasn’t big enough for him so he attacked innocent Mr. Waite who lived next door and took his property. Mr. Waite being a much smaller, weaker man had been helpless to defend himself so the HOA had to intervene on behalf of Mr. Waite to get his property back from big, bad Sam. Everyone believed Sam had never forgotten the humiliation of the whole episode.

In the intervening years old Sam had also killed some of his children for getting out of line and his whole family lived in fear that they’d be next to die. Everyone in the neighborhood also knew Sam was up to something. Nobody was sure what it was but the last HOA president knew it and so did all the members of the Association’s Board. Problem was nobody could quite prove or figure out what it was but speculation was that he was planning something big to retaliate against the association. Knowing Sam’s history nobody believed he would be planning something good. In fact, the thought was that he might be planning to it devastate whole blocks of the neighborhood.

However, there was dissent among the Board with some believing they his plan might not be so evil. That contingent thought they should wait and see for sure what Sam was planning. The big dissenter who was leading the wait-and-see effort was a man named Frank. He lobbied on Sam’s behalf and told the neighborhood Sam was really a good guy and they didn’t have evidence of Sam’s plan. Many didn’t know what to make of Frank though because he’d been selling lawn care equipment to Sam for years and he’d made a lot of money off of Sam.

The HOA President and his tennis partner Tony felt that it might be too late if they went along with Frank and just waited to see what Sam was up to. They thought if they let something bad happen, the whole neighborhood would blame them for doing nothing pre-emptive. Now remember, their mindset was hugely affected by the fact that just over a year ago, the HOA president’s own house had been hit by an attack from some of Sam’s neighbors’ kids. They’d carefully planned a sneak attack that took out the President’s garage and some of his children had died. The HOA President vowed to never, ever let that happen again. NO, he would be vigilant,

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

I’d like to know what the Bush apologists think of his plan to include employer health plans as taxable income. Health coverage is already at a premium that few can afford. Why is he so adamant about NOT taxing the rich? You know. The ones who don’t need (or have) employer health plans.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Paul - I’m disappointed. That’s ALL that you could come up with? Thanks for making my point.

By If America's Founders Had Been Libs

January 23, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

Army Captain: General Washington, are we going to race to Yorktown, cut off Cornwallis’s British Army and establish the greatest, most powerful and freest democracy the world has ever known?

General Washington (democrat, Maryland:) Negative, we are going to cut and run from America to the north, I believe they call it Canada, from there we can “redeploy” if the British get uppity.

Army Captain: But sir, Colonel Bush says we should surge into Yorktown and act like men, instead of all these hysterical non binding feminine resolutions.

General Washington (democrat, Maryland:) What does that Chimp know, look at is poll numbers, he’s a moron. Gather up the men and let’s run from here.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

“Now remember, their mindset was hugely affected by the fact that just over a year ago, the HOA president’s own house had been hit by an attack from some of Sam’s neighbors’ kids.” - Catalyst

So it makes sense to attack Sam for what his neighbor’s kids did? Forgive me but I have a hard time understanding that logic.

By Dusty

January 23, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Woot,

I would love for the world to love us dearly but they have their own worries. Have you noticed how many of their citizens are trying to get to our country for all its great freedoms?

Those countries which are the least like us are the ones who generate hate. Those are the fundamentalist “haters” of the world. Do I need to mention the Taliban, Wahhabism, Hamas, Hezbollah, alQueda, North Korea and other such groups and countries which predominate in hate?

Our president is fighting these “haters” and I support him. If some of his moves are not as successful as others, I am not surprised. We do not live in the land of lollipops where everything comes out like you want it to. We are a bunch of freedom loving people and Bush is trying to keep it that way.

I don’t read most links. They keep my security system too busy.

Too bad you are too blind to see it.

Bush is fighting against these groups before they get a foothold in our country by force or by propaganda. I support the President in these efforts, not the people who care more about their politics than the country.

By Truthman

January 23, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Saddam Hussein as a bad homeowner?

What a crock!!

That’s it neo-cons, make it easy so everybody can hate!!

I’m sure that’s what your so-called preacher told you last Sunday.

By George

January 23, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Bush Bumper Stickers

That’s OK, I Wasn’t Using My Civil Liberties Anyway

Let’s Fix Democracy in This Country First

If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran

Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.

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

Of Course It Hurts: You’re Getting Screwed by an Elephant

Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?

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

Impeachment: It’s Not Just for B!owjobs Anymore

America: One Nation, Under Surveillance

They Call Him “W” So He Can Spell It

Who’s God Do You Kill For?

Cheney/Satan ‘08

Jail to the Chief

No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?

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

Bad President! No Banana.

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

We’re Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them

Is It Vietnam Yet?

Bush Doesn’t Care About White People Either

Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?

You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.

Impeach Cheney First

Dubya, Your Dad Shoulda Pulled Out Too

When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46

Pray For Impeachment

The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century

What Part of “Bush Lied” Don’t You Understand?

One Nation Under Clod

2004: Embarrassed 2005: Horrified 2006: Terrified

Bush Never Exhaled

At Least Nixon Resigned

By Dusty

January 23, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

Blackadder,

If you don’t know one good thing that Bush has done, I cannot help you. I do not write in braille for the blind or bring light to the brainwashed. You are on your own.

By Paul

January 23, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

BlackAdder

You’re welcome. I never said I disagreed with your point… assume, assume.

I’d heard the same regarding health care. Struck me in the same league as having $5k health savings accounts - with a median household income of @ $42k - yeah, right. Brilliant.

This morning I heard a more indepth report - families would receive a $15,000 standard deduction. Take the marginal tax rate times $15k and that’s quite a few bucks. The tax would come on employer-provided health care in excess of $15k, so if the employer health plan is worth $18k the taxable income would be $3k.

Makes more sense. I’m still not thrilled. Dems say it’s worthless to low income people as they don’t pay that much in tax anyhow (What!??! I thought tax cuts for the rich were horrible ‘cause poor people didn’t get a big tax cut. Now Dems say they don’t pay much, if anything, anyhow!).

I can see the exceptions and exemptions already - notwithstanding it’s still fun with numbers. Let’s see, military guy, mid career, pilot type, income around $100k - are we going to tax our poor military in time of war, hmmm?

By getalife

January 23, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

Yes Glenn.

Look into his eyes to see no soul.

Tis a dark place he dwells.

The vioilence will escalate in Iraq

By Dusty

January 23, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Truthman

You have taken “simple” to its finest degree. Your discriminatory outdated opinionated display of ignorance is beyond rescue. Please keep your thoughts to yourself so that we might have a little respect for you.

By @@

January 23, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

Dammit Lt.Col. VanSmiley., there’s nothing to smile about./sarc Haven’t you been listening to the Democrats.

And you Iraqis, wipe that damn smile off your face. THERE IS NO HOPE. The Democrats, along with Al Jazeera keep telling you that. Aren’t you listening.

Trash that hope of yours. It’s useless./sarc

By LuckoDull

January 23, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

As TV producer Steve Rosenbaum wrote of her performance on the liberal website The Huffington Post: “Hillary is struggling with words that are not her own. You can practically see the teleprompter reflected in her eyes. Every word has been word-smithed, every phrase looked at by a team of consultants.”

The big question is, did she wash her hands soon after touching that little girl in the video?

I’m betting she even wretched when the little darling approached her.

By Old Dude

January 23, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

LuckoDull,

You’re quoting Liz Cheney??!! Daughter of Dick Cheney??!! As an unbiased source??? Who are you going to get a quote from next? The Bush twins on the great job their dad is doing?? Geez, do you know the definition of chutzpah?

By @@

January 23, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

Oops, sorry. Put a question mark after Democrats. Like this - Democrats?

Hell, let’s give them all they deserve.

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

Oh screw it, let’s just put them in the thick of things.

????????????????Democrats????????????

Better, much better…

By getalife

January 23, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

“Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said today that Vice President Dick Cheney “was deeply involved in the CIA link” against Valerie Plame, according to a NBC News report on MSNBC. Fitzgerald said Scooter Libby destroyed a note proving Cheney’s involvement”

This idiot pulled a Duke Cunningham and scribbled notes on Joe Wilson’s op ed.

McLiar is blaming Iraq on cheney so he will resign soon.

By Dusty

January 23, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Awww getalife,

Are you and Glenn going to sing us a little love song “ooo look into my eyes oooo and on and on oooo”?

You might not have noticed but the President was not elected to be a movie star. He was elected to lead the country and that is what he is doing, even if he has to drag all you backward liberals with him to keep our country free.

So quit dragging your feet and please….quit singing.

I now depart for lunch. Don’t cry!!!

By Shawny

January 23, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Referring to the Sam in the ‘hood story….

“Sam really isn’t doing anything wrong”. Yes he is, he isn’t complying to the HOA rules of the neighborhood in which he purchased a home. Impose UN inspections on him, and if he does not comply, force him out.

“homeless, drug users, and pretty much crazy people start to move into the home and trash it.” How can the HOA and neighbors allow this? If they don’t have enough to have them arrested, they should wiretap their phones, read their mail, etc. to build a terrorism case against them. Case closed. Game over. But just in case you don’t go this route…

“You decide that you are going to help pay for the house, fix it up, and hope to get rid of the groups of people holding the house hostage.” Now that is stupid. Don’t pay for anything, just go in guns ablazing.

Kids can still go to college because your earning power related to the debt you have incurred is so great (kind of like debt vs. GDP), that it is of a lower percentage than it was 20 years ago. Settle the dispute and once the dust clears, start paying down debt by cutting out other expenses.

By Midori

January 23, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

“Hillary is struggling with words that are not her own”.

Yet Bush struggles every day with words that ARE his own.

Speaking of struggling, you forgot your stupid, trademark “Z’s”.

By @@

January 23, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

ml:

Is the AJC webmaster drunk on the job today? Slow? On a potty break?

Or is he just eating my posts?

By BEATING THE DEAD HORSE AWARD

January 23, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

“I am saying that your constant prejudicial statements against the President of the United States are exactly what our enemies want to hear. In that way you are definitely working against the country which is know as ANTI-AMERICANISM. “

When’s this old chestnut going to go away? Even the Decider has decided this ain’t true.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

Paul - regarding your 12:13 - I apologize. I misunderstood your post. I suppose I was on high alert after responding to the Bushbot Dusty so much today. I swear talking to Dusty is like trying to get a child to understand something but all they do is cover their ears and shout LALALALALALALALA.

By Midori

January 23, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

{{snicker}}

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorneys for former White House aide “Scooter” Libby said Tuesday that Bush administration officials tried to blame him for the leak of a CIA operative’s name to cover up for Bush political adviser Karl Rove’s own disclosures.

Attorney Theodore Wells, in the opening statements of I. Lewis Libby’s perjury trial, said Libby went to Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 and complained that the White House was subtly blaming him for leaking Valerie Plame’s identity to columnist Robert Novak.

They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb,'' Wells said, recalling the conversation between Libby and Cheney.I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected.”

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

Damnit Andy. I ALMOST read one of your posts. Please continue with the Z’s so I can more effectively recognize your babblings and scroll through them.

By Ditzty

January 23, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

“the situation in Iraq is dire.” Lt. Gen. David Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee today.

Why does this man hate America? Another surrender monkey.

By Paul

January 23, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

LuckoDull

Heard Dee Dee Myers - Clinton Press Secretary - interviewed on NPR the other day. Not kind about Hillary, temper, temper, in spite of the PR. Talked about a policy mtg re Whitewater - they’d agreed best course was to hand over the documents. Stephanopolous was chair - H came in, asked what was going on - S was only one with nerve to tell her - and she ripped him to shreds. Myers said she was like that a lot - off camera.

Do ya think she’s changed and is now a nuturing, motherly type?

By w00t

January 23, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

Catalyst,

I must say, that was a awesome job!

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

What really bothers me about Bush taxing our health care plans is that it will give the wingnuts ammo to say “But we thought you libs wanted taxes raised”.

We do but only on those who enjoyed the massive tax cuts in the first place. I’ll pay a hell of a lot more if my health plan is taxed than I got with that mere pittance Bush handed out a few years ago.

By Midori

January 23, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Hey Andy!!!

there are TWO black coaches in the Super Bowl this year!!

Got your bombs all ready? How do you plan on smuggling them into the stadium?

By Truthman

January 23, 2007 01:03 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

No!

By Dusty

January 23, 2007 01:04 PM | Link to this

Blackadder,

Have you forgotten? When you want to blame someone else for your “misunderstandings” you are supposed to say “Bush did it!!” Now give a good liberal LALALALALALA!

I’m off to lunch. Don’t cry…

By Midori

January 23, 2007 01:05 PM | Link to this

Hillary has a {{{GASP}}} Temper!!!!

Oh no!!!!

Man the lifeboats!!! Batten down the hatches!!!! Duct tape alert!!!

WHAT WILL WE TELL THE CHILDREN????

By Catalyst

January 23, 2007 01:06 PM | Link to this

WooT,

I was cut off:

The HOA President vowed to never, ever let that happen again. NO, he would be vigilant, he would be on guard, he would protect his family from every possible threat and at any cost. Since old Sam was looking very much like a threat, he and Tony could not afford to let the threat materialize so they went over and took Sam out. And, while it is true that none of Sam’s kids were not quite prepared to take over and take care of the house and that they were fighting like cats and dogs now over who’d get to be the new Sam, the neighborhood was safer without Sam.

Whatever Sam was up to, the subdivision will never know. They were saved from the menace. And someday, when all the dust settles and Sams’s family gets their act together and the Association gets all the bills paid for their fight, everyone will be grateful for an Association president who refused to let Sam kill any more of his children, attack any more of his neighbors and cause unknown harm to the neighborhood.

We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” — John F. Kennedy

By Paul

January 23, 2007 01:11 PM | Link to this

Well Hello, Midori!

Glad to see you here with the Scooter trial. I read your excerpt and thought, well, duh, welcome to Washington. Rove was around a lot longer than Scooter.

Lots of people are real big on accountability - for someone else. I was wondering if you (or anyone else reading this) would please enlighten me on my earlier (11:17) question?

Now Ms Plame was an “operative?” An operative?

… no where in the charges is he (Scooter) charged with revealing the name of a covert agent in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

I seem to recall there were quite a group of people on this forum who ripped into the President and Administration for “outing” a covert agent…

Could someone please explain to me why Scooter wasn’t charged with this heinous crime?

By Talon News

January 23, 2007 01:17 PM | Link to this

OK everyone I have a quick update…….

It seems like it will be immpossible to get Bush to say “decider” instead of “deciderer.” So they have scraped it.

They have now inserted “We will never accept anything but a nuclear free Iran”, obviously we were going to have problems with that too. Of course he’s having problems with that line. COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!

They’re still in panic mode. Poor Karly.

Jeff…O~O

By NightTrain

January 23, 2007 01:21 PM | Link to this

SwiftVoter, Your ignorance is showing (11:18 - He is our defective leader (appointed, not elected).)

Every recount, even those by the Communist News Network, showed that he was elected. All the courts did was stop the left from a year long filibuster to prevent the legally elected President from taking office.

By Paul

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

Midori 1:05

Historical perspective - that was the same exact charge repeated in the mainstream broadcast media when Sen McCain ran in ‘00. “Does he have the temperament? Will his staff feel free to express their ideas? Will he inspire confidence? Will his temper get in the way of judgement?”

So again, everything old is new again. I’m just waiting to see if the same media response occurs now.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 01:26 PM | Link to this

Paul - Maybe it’s the same reason they went after Al Capone for tax dodging instead of racketeering. Better to convict on a lesser charge than risk losing for lack of evidence/reliable witnesses.

By Buy Danish

January 23, 2007 01:26 PM | Link to this

ONE:

{{{By Midori

January 23, 2007 01:05 PM | Link to this

Hillary has a {{{GASP}}} Temper!!!!

Oh no!!!!

Man the lifeboats!!! Batten down the hatches!!!! Duct tape alert!!!

WHAT WILL WE TELL THE CHILDREN????}}}

Squawking Parrot,

Your side wouldn’t confirm John Bolton because he was “mean” to a subordinate. Can we get a do-over with those Senate hearings?

Now maybe you can cite ONE comment that ‘Andy’ has EVER made which merits this -

TWO:

{{{By Midori

January 23, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Hey Andy!!!

there are TWO black coaches in the Super Bowl this year!!

Got your bombs all ready? How do you plan on smuggling them into the stadium?}}}

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 01:28 PM | Link to this

NightTrain - you are assuming that there were no electronic machine hanky panky (which there were) and that all the ballots were cast for whom they were intended (which they weren’t).

By Corky Cobb

January 23, 2007 01:30 PM | Link to this

No matter if you love him or hate him its always got to be a tough thing to do, impeach an elected official.

Well, its now startlingly clear, the House will have to revise their agenda and immediately start impeachment hearings against Vice-President Cheney.

Certainly not what this country needs at this awful time in our history. May God Bless us.

By Buy Danish

January 23, 2007 01:39 PM | Link to this

Blackadder,

Thanks for proving once and for all what a totally ignorant fool you are.

There was no “electronic hanky panky” in Florida. There were dimples and pregnant chads caused by punching out ballots by hand which were examined with unprecedented scrutiny, in certain hand-picked precincts.

NightTrain is right. Bush won. Gore lost. Even CNN admits it. Get over it.

By Corky Cobb

January 23, 2007 01:43 PM | Link to this

I cried today. My 12 year old son looked at me with a terrified look on his face and asked “Daddy, why did you vote for Bush?”

With tears rolling down my cheeks, I looked him square in the eye and said “I’m sorry son.”

We hugged, we cried, we forgave.

By NightTrain

January 23, 2007 01:46 PM | Link to this

Blackadder, I see you have more facts from “where the sun doesn’t shine”. Or is this more of the hanging chad crap?

IF there were problems with the electronic machines, what makes you think that the “machines” took from the left anf gave to the right? I guess your rectal craniuml inversion facts are not open for dispute by the actual facts!

By Midori

January 23, 2007 01:48 PM | Link to this

B-a-a-a-a-h Danish,

how’s shearing season going?

By Paul

January 23, 2007 01:51 PM | Link to this

BlackAdder 1:26

Okay, I suppose enough time has gone by with no other responses -

Al Capone - sure, but no one ever said Al Capone was investigated because he was a virtuous priest. Plame, on the other hand, was immediately annointed a “covert agent.” Much of the outrage (italics and bold) here and in the media was because the Administration conspired (i&b) to “out” her to punish (i&b) her husband for daring (i&b) to oppose the President!

I never saw a serious examination of covert status within the Agency. Didn’t see much discussion on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Didn’t see much on the discrediting of Mr. Plame after the Postware Assessment on Iraq was released.

So then we went through the special prosecutor thing (the outrage on “outing” continued). No mention of “covert agent.” Now she’s an employee, maybe an operative. Or even a headquarters desk jockey. But covert agent? Silence. So Scooter’s on trial for lying about revealing the name of a covert agent when he possibly knew she possibly wasn’t a covert agent?

Just listen to all the people who want Pres Bush to apologize for lying to the American people, for misleading the people, for saying things that just aren’t so. I’d sure be amazed if any of those same people would say “I said Valerie Plame was a covert agent? I said outing her was a vindictive act designed to destroy her career, harm her husband and imperil America’s security? Uh, sorry ‘bout that.”

By Midori

January 23, 2007 01:53 PM | Link to this

you guys need to take it easy on B-a-a-a-h Danish.

She doesn’t have her partner in crime, RW, the original cheerleader here to echo her lunatic ravings and deluded thinking.

I saw them on the Wooten blog this past weekend, and no matter how hard they got their butts kicked with truth and logic, they were determined to go down swinging, with stupid, jerk postings about Sandy Berger and Fitzgerald “on a witch hunt”.

but then, she knows all about witches and hunting, I suppose.

By Midori

January 23, 2007 01:54 PM | Link to this

B-a-a-a-a-h Danish,

what’s wrong?

didn’t Andy let you in on the fun when he was building his bombs?

By Midori

January 23, 2007 01:55 PM | Link to this

Night Train,

if you do a little research, you will see that is actually what happened.

but then, I suppose it’s easier to hold onto your wrong headed beliefs disguised as “facts”.

By Catalyst

January 23, 2007 01:56 PM | Link to this

Corky Cobb,

Adults have to protect children. Some day he will understand that you did not make a mistake…..and you will too.

By Midori

January 23, 2007 01:59 PM | Link to this

MSNBC ‘Breaking News’: CHENEY “deeply involved” in CIA leak case!!

My!!!

B-a-a-a-a-h Danish must be beside itself.

By Midori

January 23, 2007 02:05 PM | Link to this

[Mr. Bush’s overall approval rating has fallen to just 28 percent, a new low, while more than twice as many (64 percent) disapprove of the way he’s handling his job.](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/22/opinion/polls/main2384943.shtml]

who appoves of this idiot, outside of the idiots on this blog.

I must leave you now, B-a-a-a-a-h.

duty calls.

Unlike you, I have a life outside this blog.

Ta, idiot.

b-a-a-a-a-a-ah now.

By @@

January 23, 2007 02:05 PM | Link to this

Paul:

Your 1:11?

It’s a shame you weren’t here in May of 2006(?).

Midori had gotten the scoop on a Rove indictment at “Truthout”. Jason Leopold had reported it there. He was the leading authority on “Plamegate”.

You know how Midori is always giving us newsflashes. Well that day her newsflash on the Rove indictment was begun with a “Psssstttt, Fitzmas has arrived.” My Unwitting Role in the Rove ‘Scoop’

I’ll give her credit, she tries really hard to keep us informed.

By Paul

January 23, 2007 02:06 PM | Link to this

Midori

Well, I guess it is just plain easier to keep on with the Buy Danish namecalling than to discuss a serious issue. Makes for a pretty good diversion, for some.

And you were doing so much better…

By Shawny

January 23, 2007 02:17 PM | Link to this

Here is a good media related toon, regarding tonight’s speech:

http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/PaulNowak/2007/01/2

So when exactly did we start having rebuttals? Glad this wasn’t on last night, or I would have missed “24”. Now that would have sucked.

By Paul

January 23, 2007 02:20 PM | Link to this

@@

Ever see any of those Happy Days episodes where Fonzie tries to say “I was wrong” and he stutters and stutters after saying “was”? I never knew Fonzie was a superlib -

By Midori

January 23, 2007 02:25 PM | Link to this

Paul,

yes it is just plain easier to keep on with B-a-a-a-a-h Danish namecalling, as she opened the floodgates, not I.

As to your issues, I just don’t want to discuss them with you at the present time.

No dodge, not a diversion - just not interested in what you have to say.

It’s the same old broken record.

It’s much more fun to taunt that ignorant witch dressed in sheep’s clothing.

for me anyway.

So now I “have” to interact with you?

I’ll do so when “I’m” ready, if at all.

have a good day.

By Buy Danish

January 23, 2007 02:28 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Midori the accused ‘Andy’ and now me of racism. Her feathers are ruffled because she can’t find any evidence of it so she is having a squaaaaaaawk attack.

That’s parrot talk for STFU.

By Paul

January 23, 2007 02:36 PM | Link to this

Midori,

If I recall correctly, you just posted a few items about Scooter’s trial - and the VP’s complicity.

I just pointed out that none of those calling for heads to roll when this started are steppping forward to say, “well, I guess Valerie really wasn’t a super duper covert undercover special agent. Sorry for all the false accusations.”

I can see why you wouldn’t want to interact on this issue. I really can.

By Buy Danish

January 23, 2007 02:39 PM | Link to this

Make that “Midori HAS accused…”

Since the Parrots are so in love with poll results, this look back at Winston Churchill who lost re-election despite being hugely popular, is interesting.

…but there is no doubt that Churchill neglected Conservative interests during the war years. ‘Never was a party so leaderless as the Conservative Party is today’, wrote one Conservative backbench MP in October 1944.

Meanwhile the Labour Party and its allies in the media ran an effective propaganda war on the home front. They vilified members of the pre-war Conservative party as having been appeasers of Hitler, and of having been responsible for the failure to re-arm Britain. And they painted the 1930s in dismal colours as an era of poverty and mass unemployment. At the same time, they held out the prospect of a new social order that would ensure better housing, free medical services and employment for all.

Sound familiar?

By @@

January 23, 2007 02:39 PM | Link to this

Paul:

Fonzie? You mean he choked?

I wonder how a parrot sounds when they choke?

{{{By: Midori}}}

{{{b-a-a-a-a-a-ah now?}}}

By Paul

January 23, 2007 02:41 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish

Facts sure get in the way, don’t they? Well, good to hear you can see it for what it is -

By Goldie

January 23, 2007 02:42 PM | Link to this

Paul, you Scooter b@tt-kisser — have you ever asked yourself why would Scooter bother to LIE about how he found out about Valerie Plame? If she was a “desk jockey”, why the need for lying to the grand jury? I seem to remember Patrick Fitzgerald’s explanation in 2006 about why he could not pursue any other charges was because he felt like he was an “umpire having sand kicked in his face” because of all of the lying going on between Scooter and KKKarl Rover! Once again, you come here regurgitating what you’ve heard your hero O’Reilly spouting off about and you don’t even bother to do any research about the facts!

Scooter is facing 30 years prison time for lying about a “desk jockey” — right! That makes a lot of sense, huh?

So, once again, why do you think Scooter would bother to lie about how he found out about “a desk jockey” at the CIA?

By SwiftVoter

January 23, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this

By George you’ve got it!! Love those Bush bumper stickers.

By Paul

January 23, 2007 02:47 PM | Link to this

@@

Do you know how an uberlib admits making a mistake (I’m being gentle, here)-

“I was wrong, once. That was the time I thought I’d made a mistake.”

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 02:48 PM | Link to this

Geez you wingnuts are a nasty bunch. When one disagrees you start the name calling like a bunch of school children. No wonder your intellect won’t allow you to see what 72% of the rest of the country sees. Your man Bush is a failure.

I suppose, for you, living in ignorance is bliss.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 02:50 PM | Link to this

Let me know when the discourse here rises to an adult level.

By rushncap

January 23, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this

Dusty — you still have no concept that “country” and “government” are not synonymous. I’ve tried, but obviously there is not much I can do about that other than to point out to others that you have absolutely no concept of this key difference. I’d suggest you read some Jefferson, but that may go a touch above your head. Therefore not once have I posted “anti-American” thoughts, since you are not the arbiter of what is and isn’t “American”.

My criticism of Bush is very founded. The fact that you simply try to ignore the foundations does not make them unfounded. It makes you dishonest.

And Dusty, Bush is not our national Father. That Nazi-esque speech makes me sick. We are not a “family”. Manson was a “family”. We are a nation. And Bush is not our father. Stalin was Soviet Union’s “father”. Niyazov was Turkmenistant’s “father”.

By rushncap

January 23, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

Yes, Muffin, we did create al Qaeda in Iraq. If it was not there before the invasion and it’s there now, there’s not much wiggle room in the conclusions, now is there?

And no, they did not “magically” stay out of Iraq. They stayed out of Iraq because Saddam did not like them. And we all know very well what he did to people he did not like.

Gosh you’re a dense one.

By Midori

January 23, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I shouldn’t have been so mean.

check this out - live blogging from the trial

I’m on deadline right now, but will return later to address your questions.

By LuckoDull

January 23, 2007 02:58 PM | Link to this

By Old Dude January 23, 2007 12:27 PM LuckoDull, You’re quoting Liz Cheney??!!

Old Dullard: The person speaking the words means less to me then the words being right.

If you weren’t such a sucka-ss partisan flame thrower you too could read those words and see the perfect sense they make.

For this revelation to dawn on you I will not hold my breath waiting, believe me.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

All you other dullards: I use the Z’s when the subject I’m discussing tires me or I find it to be dull, in Hillary’s case I was feeling ill, thinking of that pig monster bit-ch makes me sick.

The Z’s don’t work with vomit.

By LuckoDull

January 23, 2007 03:12 PM | Link to this

By Midori January 23, 2007 12:58 PM Hey Andy!!! there are TWO black coaches in the Super Bowl this year!! Got your bombs all ready?

Midori: You’re as dull and as stupid as the day is long.

I was actually thinking that the race angle being brought up by the media was just about as shallow as you can get, after all it isn’t like a black man is defective and has any major hurdles to overcome being a successful NFL coach.

But I fully understood that it was you liberals bringing the subject up and it just simply reinforced for me why I am a Conservative, I do not sort people by their color like you do.

I look at Lovie Smith and I see intrical member of my beloved Chicago Bears, a team that I have worshipped since Walter Payton took his first hand off and ran with the ball.

I named my son after Michael Jordan, if this helps to clarify anything.

But you go on with your life as is, you keep on assuming the worse about people, you keep seeing bad where there is only good, you run and hide from demons that don’t exist.

Just like all liberals do.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Paul

January 23, 2007 03:17 PM | Link to this

Goldie 2:42

Ah yes, so true to form. Start off with the namecalling (BlackAdder 2:48 - I agree) then ignore the central issue and launch your own questions. O’Reilly addressed this? Really? Didn’t see it. I’d be interested to hear your take on his take.

Just so you know, I read the Intelligence Identies Protection Act (several times) when this kicked off. I also read relevant portions of the PostAssessment - relevant portions as it goes several hundred pages. I figured this would be a slam-dunk nonissue if it were about facts and would drag on with horrid accusations if it were about politics and partisanship.

Scooter’s on trial for obstruction and perjury. I can’t begin to assess his motives - anything at this point would be conjecture, not fact, not opinion based upon fact. You know the difference, yes? It’s the same nonsense as with the Clinton/Lewinsky imbroglio - hey, if you can’t get’em on the issue go for perjury! At least we’ll have a conviction. BTW - I thought the Republicans would’ve learned from that one and instructed the Special Prosecutor to produce a finding of fact on Plame’s status (the heart of the matter) before proceeding. They should have seen this one coming.

I’m really happy you weighed in on this. So, for what, the third time today, I make the same appeal. Can you pretty please tell me why some would still maintain Ms Plame is a covert agent? Or is she, as the press now states, an employee, maybe an operative? And if she isn’t are apologies forthcoming?

It really isn’t that difficult.

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 03:19 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - The new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said he fears the government will not have enough money for homeland security and other domestic priorities because of President Bush’s ” Iraq adventure.”

In an interview on Monday, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., criticized almost every major facet of the Bush administration’s national security course since Sept. 11, 2001. “The president has in a sense walked away from the war on terror,” Rockefeller said.

Because of what he termed a misplaced fascination with Iraq based on faulty intelligence, Rockefeller said al-Qaida and Afghanistan have been neglected. He said he worries that U.S. intelligence on Iran is lacking, and what the nation knows about North Korea is even worse.

By Buy Danish

January 23, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

rushncap (not darling) fool,

Why did Saddam Hussein give Al Zawahiri a $300,000 check?

Why did al qaeda run to Iraq when we went into Afghanistan?

Why did Bin Laden keep mentioning Iraq in his Fatwas, going back to the (SHHHHH) Clinton years?

And further connections that belie your ludicrous theory, ad nauseum.

There were numerous connections between the two.

A video of Bin Laden kissing Hussein’s butt and vice versa wouldn’t do it for you, so what’s the point?

Your response would be - it was just about sex, but they hated eachother!

By getalife

January 23, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

That is great stuff Midori.

FYI, the owner of that blog, Jane just had her third breast cancer surgery and all the left wing blogs rallied to support her. Good people.

She is trying to get back to see cheney testify under oath.

By Paul

January 23, 2007 03:26 PM | Link to this

Midori 2:55

Thanks for the link. That is one lonngggg report. I scanned through - didn’t see anything on the topic I’m interested in. This strikes me as so much more of the “it ain’t about the crime, it’s about the actions after” gotchas. More rehash of Iraq, power politics at its finest. Lots of parallels to the OJ trial, here.

I’d love to hear a juror (Fed trials I’ve been involved in - jurors could submit questions to the prosecution or defense - judge reviewed them and decided if they’d be introduced) ask “Mr. Fitzgerald, was Ms Plame a covert agent or not? If she was, then why wasn’t Mr. Libby charged under the appropriate statute? If she was not, then is anything Mr. Libby said about her not a crime, as she was not a covert agent?”

By Pot calling the kettle WHAT?

January 23, 2007 03:27 PM | Link to this

If you weren’t such a sucka-ss partisan flame thrower you too could read those words and see the perfect sense they make.

Mom said it takes one to know one

By w00t

January 23, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this

Nope, it sure isn’t happening… this is something political that liberal tree huggers hide under…

“The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak,” said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. “The evidence … is compelling.”

By Goldie

January 23, 2007 03:32 PM | Link to this

Paul, here’s a link that may help educate you a little and it explains one reason Scooter may have felt the need to lie about his actions in revealing Valerie Plame’s identity:

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked “(S)” for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Even the White House memo says that her identity was “secret” — and as the Post article states:

“The CIA classifies as “secret” the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.”

So, Paul — how does this line up with your assessment that Plame was a mere “desk jockey”?

By Midori

January 23, 2007 03:35 PM | Link to this

LOL

I just HAD to return long enough to post this I just got in an email:

LEAKED TRANSCRIPT OF BUSH SOTU SPEECH

My fellow Americans.

Bla bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Iraq bla bla bla bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla. Bla surge sacrifice bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla.

(pause for applause)

Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla hydrogen space cars Mars bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla.

(pause for applause)

Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla nukular nukular nukular nukular bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla Iran bla bla bla Shia bla bla bla Sunni bla bla bla Saddam Saddam bla bla bla Mars hydrogen bla bla bla.

(pause for applause)

Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla health care bla bla bla tax cut bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Mars hydrogen Mars Mars bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla this bald a***** behind me is going to jail bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Libby Rove bla bla bla bla bla bla I hate Fitz bla bla bla Mars bla bla bla Iraq bla bla bla sacrifice bla bla bla I need a beer bla bla bla.

(pause for applause)

Bla bla bla bla 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 bla bla bla bla bla bla 9/11 9/11 9/11 bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla 9/11 9/11 bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla I like eggs bla bla bla I like scrambled eggs bla bla bla fried eggs bla bla bla sunny-side-up eggs bla bla bla nukular bla bla bla.

Good night, and God bless America.

Bla bla bla bla.

By rushncap

January 23, 2007 03:46 PM | Link to this

I like how you don’t produce any evidence for your claims, Muffin-top. I’ll produce a single one for mine: 9/11 study group, which found “Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.”

This is getting tiresome, Muffin. It really is. Don’t ever get embarassed by yourself?

By Paul

January 23, 2007 03:54 PM | Link to this

Goldie 3:32

Thanks, I’d seen that (similar). Key paragraph is 4th, which says the info did not reveal Plame’s status.

Quick review - an entire document is classified according to the highest classification of information contained. Paragraphs (procedures vary by agency) are designated by the security classification when anything (anything) in that paragraph is classified. For example, if the methods or sources are classified (even names of operations are classified) the entire paragraph, therefore the document, is classified.

CIA referring it to Justice? Standard operating procedure, especially in such a case. Get it out of your back yard and hand responsibility off.

CIA personnel are dual-tracked from the outset, as I understand it. Some are identified for a career on the ops side, some not. While the identities of those personnel can be sensitive, I do not believe the designation “covert” applies to any posting they may have. Someone may be a detective, identity protected while working undercover operations. The person always carries the designation “Detective” but their identity is protected based upon they type of case they’re working.

So that’s a bit of how I’ve formulated my opinion.

By RE

January 23, 2007 03:57 PM | Link to this

Hey Paul,

I do not know about what the official status of Plame was, I am pretty sure you do not either. Now I am not sure who would know for certain what her status was, but it was the CIA that initiated the investigation. Not a journalist, not the DNC, it was the CIA that found a criminal act may have been commited by disclosing her name. I imagine the CIA knows her status better that you or I

By Blackadder

January 23, 2007 04:02 PM | Link to this

Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment of the GOP — “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican” — has resulted in a generation of political hacks who maintained the party hard line on Iraq despite mounting evidence of its failures.

Congressional Republicans couldn’t find it in their conservative hearts to speak out against the Bush White House’s failing Iraq policies until after they lost control of the House and Senate in November.

Why is it only now that these stalwart conservatives are experiencing such a crisis of conscience over the thousands of U.S. lives lost and tens of thousands wounded, wasted taxpayers’ money and engaging in nation building?

While in power they silenced critics and thwarted deliberate debate about placing our military in harm’s way in the world’s most volatile region based on flawed intelligence and planning.

Had they followed the Powell doctrine of massive force deployment and a well-defined exit strategy rather than the Rumsfeld doctrine of cheap and fast, we might have carried the day in Iraq as we did in 1991. But Powell’s hard-won military experience was shouldered aside by Capitol Hill chickenhawks.

By Goldie

January 23, 2007 04:03 PM | Link to this

For your further education, Paul — this link tells what some other CIA undercover agents have to say about Plame’s responsibilities at the CIA:

For 18 years as an undercover agent for the CIA, Valerie Plame Wilson kept her occupation and her identity a secret, even to her own friends and family, to avoid compromising her work as a spy.

By RW-(the original)

January 23, 2007 04:07 PM | Link to this

Blackadder,

At 11:39 you asked Dusty the following:

{{{{{Can you name the good he’s done? Be honest. Name only things that are good for EVERY American.}}}}}

Forget President Bush for a second and name one thing ANY President has done that fits that qualification. Keep in mind that you are asking for an answer with no chance for historical reflection, so whatever you name you have to show that EVERY American knew it was a good thing as it happened.

rushncap,

I’m still waiting for you to show me President Bush saying Iraq was an imminent threat. Don’t try rolling out your UCLA headline writer’s fiction this time either.

By Nomad

January 23, 2007 04:07 PM | Link to this

Goldie -

You left out this:

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame’s name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said.

Don’t forget the line where it says that it did not describe her status as covert.

Thanks, NOMAD

By LOCAL RECRUITER

January 23, 2007 04:12 PM | Link to this

I’M STAYING OPEN EXTRA LATE TONIGHT AND OPENING UP EARLY IN THE MORNING JUST TO ACCOMODATE YOU WAR W*******.

AFTER YOU HAVE STOOD UP IN YOUR LIVING ROOMS FOR AN HOUR - SALUTING OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF FOR AN HOUR OR SO TONIGHT DURING WHAT YOU’LL FIND A STIRRING AND PATRIOTIC STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH - YOU”LL BE READY TO ENLIST, RIGHT?

REMEMBER THERE IS A PLACE IN THIS WAR FOR YOU (other than hiding behind your keyboard) IF YOU WANT ONE>

SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT< GET INTO UNIFORM!

By Goldie

January 23, 2007 04:19 PM | Link to this

HA— thanks for the transcript, Midori! I’m sure I’ll find something else to do with my time after work tonight…

By Paul

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

RE 3:57

That’s just the point - no one does! It should not be that difficult - although the point of fact is her designation at the time of the incident.

As to the CIA initiating the investigation - I’d have to check their standard operating procedures. Some have procedures such as “anytime anything regarding our people or operations is reported in the press, refer the case to Justice.” There’s a big difference between a standard referral and an assessment of wrongdoing - which CIA did not do, as I understand.

Shouldn’t have been that difficult for Fitzgerald to identify. Procedures vary throughout the Fed gov’t, but generally speaking, one would start with the personnel file, with the documents regarding security classification. Some agencies identify every position within the agency by a security classification (“the position designator of expeditor in the frammet office is 123xy. Personnel occupying this position must possess a security rating of Confidential or higher). Some adjust the active designation depending upon assignment.

Didn’t we hear Fitzgerald knew the source of the leak (Armitage) when he began this circus?

Goldie 4:03 - I’ve read those, also others that said she and her husband spoke freely. It really doesn’t matter. A person can say they’re a neurologist. What matters is if they have the license.

By the way - the relevant Act (I really thought someone would ask) states “covert” doesn’t apply when the individual has been assigned from overseas to the US for a certain period of years. Of course, that is not the same as discussing operations, but that’s a different topic.

By getalife

January 23, 2007 04:27 PM | Link to this

Libby’s defense is to toss Rove under the bus.

Looks like Leopold was right about Rove except for the indictment which may come later.

Great stuff seeing the fraud of Iraq exposed. This will lead to more investigations and indictments.

By Bob

January 23, 2007 04:32 PM | Link to this

Paul, Luckoduhh, Gonad…. Amazing examples of the Little People. All excited for the big night Chimp jamboree. Ah shucks.

By RE

January 23, 2007 04:34 PM | Link to this

Paul, I the CIA referred to opening the investigation as a crime report 6/30/2003 and filed it at the DOJ.

I read the act as well, there is a nice line in there about knowingly outing a covert agent. In this case ignorance, or the appearence of ignorance is a defense. IF they tried the case under that statute, Fitz would have to first follow the chain of event on who leaked the name, then prove they knew her status as well. There is enough grey area there for a 1st year law student to get someone out. Libby made it much easier by purjering himself

By Buy Danish

January 23, 2007 04:45 PM | Link to this

Rushncap you fool,

YOU claim that al qaeda, who is afraid of nothing, was afraid of Hussein the tyrant and would never dare step foot in Iraq.

Neither Bush, nor I, ever said that Al Qaeda and Hussein were collaborating to PLAN 9/11.

By Goldie

January 23, 2007 04:51 PM | Link to this

{Shouldn’t have been that difficult for Fitzgerald to identify.}

I’ll bet you were just a fabulous prosecutor in your heyday, Paul!

By rushncap

January 23, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this

RW, first of all, if what people take away from a speech is that Iraq is an “imminent threat” either Bush implied it or his writers (and he himself) so incompetent that they don’t even know how to use the English language. If an unbiased observer walks away from your talk thinking that you said “A” whereas you meants “not A”, you need to learn to speak.

Second of all enjoy this. I’m sure you’ll try to weasel out of this one as well. However, you know as well as me that Bush made it sound like Iraq was about to invade us very soon. Denying that, whether he used the actual term “imminent” or a synonym for it, is patently intellectually dishonest. Which means you’ll probably rush to it.

By rushncap

January 23, 2007 04:55 PM | Link to this

Not sure if the first one posted, so will try again:

RW, first of all, if what people take away from a speech is that Iraq is an “imminent threat” either Bush implied it or his writers (and he himself) so incompetent that they don’t even know how to use the English language. If an unbiased observer walks away from your talk thinking that you said “A” whereas you meants “not A”, you need to learn to speak.

Second of all enjoy this. I’m sure you’ll try to weasel out of this one as well. However, you know as well as me that Bush made it sound like Iraq was about to invade us very soon. Denying that, whether he used the actual term “imminent” or a synonym for it, is patently intellectually dishonest. Which means you’ll probably rush to it.

By Nomad

January 23, 2007 05:02 PM | Link to this

Bob - Grown-ups are talking. When that happens children should be quiet. SHHHHHHH

Thanks, NOMAD

By rushncap

January 23, 2007 05:03 PM | Link to this

Muffin, you still fail to produce any evidence for your claim. $#it or get off the pot. Your posts contain no information except for snarky b***.

By Huge

January 23, 2007 05:07 PM | Link to this

Hello all,

There is one thing I wanted to clear up from last night.

At 6:28 RW wrote:

rushncap,

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

At 6:39 I replied:

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

RW’s fallacious belief that it is a LIE that Bush called the Iraqi threat imminent, cannot be allowed to stand uncorrected.

I can just hear that always quibbling wordsmith BD now. (In a childish and nasty tone) “Where does he use the word imminent?”, and then when shown the truth, “What dictionary did that definition come from?”

per·il (pěr’əl) n.

It is not surprising that these sickening and hypocritical neo-cons conveniently can’t recall one of the several ulterior motives this inept administration used to justify all of these American KIA.

By Paul

January 23, 2007 05:14 PM | Link to this

RE 4:34

Exactly. I don’t think any of them knew her status at the time. But reading the statute as you did, reading what is says as opposed to what you want it to say, leads to the conclusion you wrote. I think Fitzgerald knew this and so pressed on. Now the circus - justice, or politics? Politics.

For all those who still follow the “he lied” mantra (for Scooter, not Pres Bush) my understanding is in such circumstances Special Prosecutors can ask a witness anything they want, relevant or not. They can subpoena any records, delve into any personal information, do practically anything they can connect a “thread” to. I’d have thought several of the liberal leftwingers would’ve been screaming loud and long about “invasion of privacy” and “the sham of due process.” But, this is about embarassing the Administration so it’s okey dokey.

Goldie 4:51 Fitzgerald also has quite a staff (one reason these cases cost so much - there go the taxes you paid for how many years?) and can draw upon people from the relevant areas. I laid out some pretty simple options he could have pursued. You respond, again, with another personal swipe.

I think I’ve got it. When you can’t answer a question: personal attack. If you don’t like an opinion: personal attack. Brain hits overload: big attack. If you have a pretty good answer or a pretty good question: give it. But don’t forget the personal swipe.

By Buy Danish

January 23, 2007 05:14 PM | Link to this

rushncap you hypocritical fool,

I have posted link after link for a year now. It’s not my fault that you choose to remain ignorant and not open up the links and read them.

Try this one, which has the lying Democrats on the record about Saddam Hussein.

Makes that KOS link look pretty ridiculous.

By rushncap

January 23, 2007 05:15 PM | Link to this

Yeah Huge, RW wants us to forget what happened only 4 years ago and pretend we went to Iraq because Bush one day got up in front of the nation, and boldly proclaimed: “Eh, I have nothing else planned next Tuesday, might as well invade a sovereign nation between brunch and a bike ride.” The thing is, these people KNOW they’re being dishonest, they know we know they’re being dishonest… and they continue to do it, with no moral qualms.

By RW-(the original)

January 23, 2007 05:17 PM | Link to this

Blowhard,

Are you trying to say that you’re rushcap now?

It’s very obvious from the excerpt you used that President Bush was saying we couldn’t wait for the threat to become imminent.

rushncap,

I don’t give a damn what the writer’s impressions were, he quoted what thew President actually said in the story you linked. Yesterday you implied that you had many examples. All you’ve come up is a headline that is contradicted by the story, a bunch of out of context quotes from a left wing hate site, and a Huge cheerleader.

By rushncap

January 23, 2007 05:19 PM | Link to this

Ooooh, a Rush Limbaugh link! Of course nowhere does it show that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda. Thanks, any more idiocy emanating from you today?

P.S. Nice to know our little Muffin trusts Rush more than a bipartisan Senate committee. I guess Rush does not overburden her brain with big words and uninteresting facts. Soundbites are so much more fun for our little Muffin!

By Buy Danish

January 23, 2007 05:19 PM | Link to this

Huge freaking phony loser,

Me, nasty tone, but you’re, I don’t know….sweet?

By RW-(the original)

January 23, 2007 05:26 PM | Link to this

HEY AJC!! This appears right below the comment box:

{{{{{There will be a delay of up to 5 minutes before your comment appears.}}}}}

Would you please get Blowhard’s dictionary and look up the definition of the phrase “up to” Thank You!

By Midori

January 23, 2007 05:29 PM | Link to this

Paul,

my last post before I go home: yes, SP’s have huge staffs and costs the public a great deal.

I wonder if you disapproved of Ken Starr’s “investigation” as much? And the millions upon millions he spent tracking down a semen-stained blue dress?

As for whether or not Libby “lied”, I suppose we will find out eventually, won’t we?

Just what has Libby lying have to do with invading his privacy?

See why I didn’t want to interact with you on the subject? Until you people can come to grips with the damage done to this country during 8 years of non stop, irrelevant investigations, and five years of mismanagement, greed, avarice, lies, lies and more lies, 2 years of a bloody, unprovoked war, and until you can get a bloody clue and grip on reality, you just are not worth trying to interact with.

Really you’re not.

I skimmed over comments and started to try to have an honest conversation with you, but it appears that all you want to do is deny reality and mock justice.

You’re not worth my time.

Have a good evening.

By @@

January 23, 2007 05:29 PM | Link to this

Did Midori link to leftwing “Firedoglake” for a transcript of the Libby Trial where the on-the-scene blogger had this to say:

“This is not an official transcript.”

What? Is that like covering your a$$ in case you get something wrong?

Why bother?

By Midori

January 23, 2007 05:31 PM | Link to this

ooooooo, Rushncap:

that’ll learn ya.

B-a-a-a-a-a-h Danish has siced Rush on you.

Another lying liar chickenhawk who dumb witches find credible.

By Midori

January 23, 2007 05:35 PM | Link to this

@@, no, it’s not an “official” transcript, and I did not try to present it as such retard.

There are bloggers present at the trial.

That is the record of one such blogger.

If you want the viewpoint(s) or others, get off your lazy rear end and try to find it.

Like you said: “why bother”?

Sh*t for brains.

By Republicans are Gonna Raise Your Taxes!

January 23, 2007 05:37 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - About 30 million Americans could face a tax hike under President George W. Bush’s plan to expand health insurance coverage and address rising health care costs, the White House said on Monday.

Republicans told us they were about LOWERING taxes, now we learn they are REALLY about RAISING them. Just one more LIE the Republicans have told us. Anytime you see a Republican open its’ filthy boy scum encrusted mouth, be prepared to hear another pack of LIES and keep both hands tightly wrapped around your wallet!

George H. Bush, August 18, 1988: “Read my lips, no new taxes.” Remember that one? It was bushshit then and ^^^we can all see it’s still bushshit now. Republicans have been full of bushshit for over 20 years. Looks like it’s finally time to break out the ex-lax.

By LuckoDull

January 23, 2007 05:41 PM | Link to this

RW: As a follow up to 7 oh 8 last nite, it’s not that I dislike Romney, I just don’t think he will get the nomination.

After all, he’s from Taxachussetts, a state that’s slap full of moonbats, from which I have never seen a normal person emerge.

I get the feeling that if he is elected he will rip off his own balls and become a pinko the first day in office.

My original comment was meant to point out that Huge was sparring with an eventual loser, much like if I were to dis John Edwards. What’s the point in that, beating up on the harmless and infirm just to show his manhood?

Besides the Clinton smear machine, stupid mindless mud slinging savages, will do in Edwards for us anyway.

And Obama too.

By Paul

January 23, 2007 05:42 PM | Link to this

Uh, Midori, I believe I said a couple of times today the Clinton/Lewinsky imbroglio was - what were the words I used? Just that - imbroglio - waste - diversion - ridiculous use of resources? Also said I was amazed the Republicans didn’t see this coming - especially since they authorized the Special Prosecutor?

I know, you can’t be expected to go through every post when you’re popping in and out -

This “invasion of privacy” was just a passing reference to all the hype I’ve heard about Patriot Act, overseas monitoring, etc. Seems anything having to do with war on terror is decried for the loss of privacy, etc. Then along comes another Special Prosecutor run amok, with some pretty substantial powers, and there’s nary a peep.

It all started out rather simply, really. It wasn’t about Republican excesses with Pres Clinton. It wasn’t about Iraq, oil, Halliburton, or “Darth Cheney.” I just asked, well, since Libby was indicted on what, perjury, obstruction, whatever, and there was nothing said about “outing a covert agent” - would those who hurled all the epithets admit that maybe they were a bit hasty, or…. wrong? Just as they wanted Pres Bush to say about Iraq.

That was all. Rather simple, I thought.

By Paul

January 23, 2007 05:49 PM | Link to this

RGRYT 5:37

So how should we handle the gov’t costs for health care? Gov’t gets its money from taxpayers, so… didn’t Speaker Pelosi make a big deal out of Pay As You Go?

Lemme guess. Tax the Rich! Except Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards (his S-Corp saved what - $800,000 in social security taxes - that you and I get to help cover?).

By RW-(the original)

January 23, 2007 05:56 PM | Link to this

LuckoDull,

I’m from Massachusetts!

Are they even going to be able to get a quorum in the Senate next year? Since San Fran Nan has some time left on her phony 100 hour clock maybe it’s time to say that if you hold a Federal office you need to resign it if you want to run for President.

By @@

January 23, 2007 05:58 PM | Link to this

Midori:

I was just trying to help steer you away from unreliable sources.

Ya’ see, I saw Leopold’s a$$ at “Truthout” and it was unsightly.

I guess you saw it and thought it was “fwine”.

By Huge

January 23, 2007 06:05 PM | Link to this

“It’s very obvious from the excerpt you used that President Bush was saying we couldn’t wait for the threat to become imminent.”

From last night I said, “And the blunder that he posted will not likely produce any sort of meaningful correction, just more spin…”

In spite of irrefutable evidence showing you WRONG, you continue to tell the same LIE. Many here have suspected it for a long time, but you most certainly have demonstrated unqualified and deserved membership, in good standing, of the Republican Liars Club.

Something else to clarify from last night is your “interesting” use of the word amnesty.

“Since I have virtually no use for President Bush’s…amnesty plan for illegals…”

It’s an old and oft-used neo-con ploy. Refer to something you don’t like as something else. In this case amnesty for temporary worker’s program. Usually the substitute term is perjorative and one that has a different meaning, but is close enough that stupid and uninformed people will fall for it.

Ironically, W’s plan was one of the excedingly few things he has proposed, that is IMHO, smart, realistic and has some of that compassionate conservatism, that is otherwise absent in this administration.

Now wonder you liars are opposed to it and have to resort to changing the name…

By Huge

January 23, 2007 06:14 PM | Link to this

First:

By LuckoDull

“After all, he’s from Taxachussetts, a state that’s slap full of moonbats, from which I have never seen a normal person emerge.”

Then this:

By RW-(the original)

LuckoDull,

I’m from Massachusetts!

Open mouth, insert foot, lil andykins! And twice on the same topic!

If RW had a whit of manhood about him, he’d tell you go F yourself!!

And if you had a whit of manhood about yourself, you’d apologize to all of the good people of the commonwealth of Massachusetts!!

Too funny!

By Paul

January 23, 2007 06:17 PM | Link to this

Good Evening, RW-(the original)

Well, I gotta say, looking back all those months -

You warned me.

Still kinda feel like the person who keeps playing the lottery ‘cause maybe the next ticket’ll be better than the one I just bought. There’s always a chance! But nope, by and large it’s some variation of “I hate Bush!”

I wonder - two years, Democrats win the White House. What’ll the cry be then when there’s a problem? “Well, if Bush…” Ah, well -

By @@

January 23, 2007 06:18 PM | Link to this

Speaking of a*******es. Is Hillary’s going to following her on the campaign trail?

And then there’s Bill, who will be both blessing and baggage. One of the most interesting things will be watching how her campaign deals with a former President in the role of campaign spouse. If he stands next to her on stage, he overpowers her. If he campaigns alone on her behalf — the traditional “surrogate” role in which many spouses are most effective — it will likely appear that he is running for what is essentially his own third term. And if he stays out of sight? Voters start wondering again just what exactly is the deal with their marriage.

Ultimately, however, the question is whether voters’ views of Hillary Clinton are so set that they cannot give her a second look. Can she win in November 2008? Her strategists point out that all she would have to do is pick up every state that John Kerry did, plus one. But getting the nomination looks far more complicated than it once did.

Personally, I’d have kicked his to the curb, but then….that’s hindsight.

By @@

January 23, 2007 06:21 PM | Link to this

Huge:

Only if RW was an “overly sensitive” liberal.

He’s not.

Nice try though.

By RW-(the original)

January 23, 2007 06:24 PM | Link to this

Blowhard,

Go F yourself. Better? LuckoDull is right about the vast majority of Massachusetts politicians and residents.

Over and over the President has said we can’t allow threats to become imminent and he said that repeatedly about Iraq. I’m making no blunder and I’m not lying about that. Since you have taken it on yourself to become rushncap’s very wordy guardian perhaps you can come up with something that proves your case. I’d hate to have to start dismissing you as a damned liar.

The funny thing is that you also said last night that I wasn’t a liar. Another flip flopping moonbat I guess.

By Howard

January 23, 2007 06:28 PM | Link to this

I’ll be watching the Chimp the way that Glenn suggests and that should be a real hoot.

By rushncap

January 23, 2007 06:29 PM | Link to this

Ah yes, RW beats his trademark hasty retreat. Hasta la vista, babay. Don’t let the door hit your a$$ on the way out.

By LuckoDull

January 23, 2007 06:30 PM | Link to this

By Huge January 23, 2007 06:14 PM First: By LuckoDull

1) I’ve never “seen” RW.

2) Any state that has bestowed Ted Kennedy and John Kerry on America can kiss my….

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Buy Danish

January 23, 2007 06:30 PM | Link to this

Parrots,

Rush Limbaugh collected quotes of the lying Democrats. KOS is not apt to have those quotes in their collection.

Don’t shoot the messenger, freaks.

rushncap you fool,

WOOPS! By Wednesday, Knight Ridder had posted a correction. “President Bush’s comments about terrorism were incorrectly reported in that saying the president insisted there was an operational link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The president suggested that such a link existed, but didn’t explicitly make that connection.”

Or?

The Senate Intelligence Committee language is important for another reason: Documents from the Iraqi Intelligence service do suggest an “established relationship,” just not “an established formal relationship.” A report in the June 25, 2004, New York Times, was based on an internal Iraqi Intelligence document: When bin Laden left the Sudan in 1996, according to the Iraqi Intelligence document, Iraqi Intelligence began “seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of [bin Laden’s] current location.” The report also indicates that bin Laden “had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative” and that “cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement.”

And?

Ba da bing.

If?

Ba da boom.

But?

ka ching

Oh heck, click a link, link any link.

shamalamadingdong

Hey, wasn’t that 9/11 Commission what Sandy Burglar was preparing testimony for when he hid and destroyed documents?

Oopsy daisy.

By Republicans are Gonna Raise Your Taxes!

January 23, 2007 06:32 PM | Link to this

Paul @ 5:49

Not offering solutions, just holding feet to the fire. If Republicans wanna raise taxes, they need to stop telling LIES and admit that they are no more in the business of reducing the size of BIG government than the Democrats are. The only difference I see in the two parties anymore is that the Democrats are at least not LYING about their love for BIG government while the Republicans can do nothing BUT LIE about their love for BIG government.

If Republicans are now of the opinion that the health crisis can’t be addressed without installing a new tax, they should say so and not continue to LIE to us, if they have now come to the belief that taxation is indeed not the ‘Grand Poobah’ economy-busting monster that they have claimed. Republicans are just too GUTLESS to say the ‘T’ word, though, aren’t they.

By One Voice

January 23, 2007 06:33 PM | Link to this

Hey rw,

What do you think about all the Republicans who are opposing not just Bush’s troop escalation, but just about everything he does? Are you going to side with your party against your sacred ruler, or are you going to keep backing your hillbilly messiah even though all the politicians who share your ideology are beginning to choose their own course? Which one are going to pick?

By One Voice

January 23, 2007 06:37 PM | Link to this

That’s right @@, rw is not an overly sensitive liberal. He’s a spineless, let-others-put-their-a*******es-on-the-line-while-I -golf, p*ssy conservative. rw, tell us again why you didn’t serve in Vietnam even though you were of age?

By RW-(the original)

January 23, 2007 06:38 PM | Link to this

Paul,

For the better part of the next two years we will see and read about Democrat X having all the right plans to fix anything that is perceived as ailing us. Then if Democrat X gets elected we’ll start hearing about how they have to study everything to come up with a plan and for four years we’ll hear how they couldn’t be expected to fix the problems President Bush created so soon.

Never underestimate the devotion to b!tching and whining from the uber left.

By One Voice

January 23, 2007 06:39 PM | Link to this

Hey, Granny’s here! Oh wait, of course she’s here; she doesn’t have anything else to do… literally… with the rest of her life…

By Buy Danish

January 23, 2007 06:40 PM | Link to this

Huge Port-a-Potty,

Is this you being a sweetie-pie?

{{{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?}}

By rushncap

January 23, 2007 06:42 PM | Link to this

Oh really, Muffin? He “suggested” there was a link, he didn’t explicitely state it? Kinda like if I were to “suggest” you’re a w******* who would have sex with animals for $20, but not explicitely state it? You know, maybe something like “Well, there’s a barn over there, and, you know, if hand Muffin a Jackson and bring a video camera you can make a good profit on the internet selling that video.” Of course you would then have no right to get upset, since I never directly state what it is you would do for a $20.

Not to mention the fact that the KOS collection of quotes is still true.

By RW-(the original)

January 23, 2007 06:42 PM | Link to this

rushncap @ 6:29,

The only retreat I see is you being a candyass and turning your battle over to Blowhard. Where’s the proof??

One Voice,

I don’t support anybody or any party. I take a stand on issues as I see them. Thanks for asking.

By rushncap

January 23, 2007 06:43 PM | Link to this

Which one is “Granny”, OV?

By One Voice

January 23, 2007 06:45 PM | Link to this

Hey Granny, what do you think about the fact that a liberal Democrat from San Francisco has proven herself to be exponentially more competent than anyone in your evangelical conservative movement? Your boy w has not only run this country into the ground to the best of his ability, but now thankfully, he’s running your party into the ground. It’s the first thing he’s done right in the last 6 years… I mean, in his lifetime.

By @@

January 23, 2007 06:47 PM | Link to this

LuckoDull:

I’m gonna borrow your ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ to respond to that “One Voice” so insignificant if you don’t mind.

By rushncap

January 23, 2007 06:47 PM | Link to this

Didn’t realize you can’t read, RW. Oh well. Not all are lucky enough to be literate.

By Paul

January 23, 2007 06:49 PM | Link to this

RGRYT

Thanks for the response - from your previous posts I hadn’t deciphered your intent - all those caps and all. I gotta say - there are a good number of Republicans who are pretty disgusted with the Administration’s spending record. The elections (and a bit of indepth analysis of results) demonstrates that. My somewhat sarcastic comment was directed at the concept that the “government” is some separate entity that magically produces money when it wants and the real trick is figuring out how to get more stuff. I gather you know the only way gov’t operates is by taking from one group and giving to another. Nice way to buy votes, ‘eh?

I’ve yet to hear anything that approaches a fix to health care. The outyear projections are terrifying for Medicare/Medicaid. So far what I’ve seen is tinkering around the edges, or another version of “forget taxes, this is income redistribution by another name.”

Later -

By RW-(the original)

January 23, 2007 06:53 PM | Link to this

By rushncap January 23, 2007 06:47 PM | Link to this Didn’t realize you can’t read, RW. Oh well. Not all are lucky enough to be literate.

Translation: rushncap can’t come up with one single example to back his claim that President Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat. I’m the one that read your story to you, junior. Who’s the illiterate one?

By Buy Danish

January 23, 2007 06:54 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

You have used these bizarre sex with animals analogies before. Just part of your interest in zoology as a Scientist I suppose.

You might enjoy this movie.

Not to mention that the Limbaugh collection of quotes is still true.

By One Voice

January 23, 2007 06:55 PM | Link to this

As a proud member of the uber left, these are the things I feel justified in “whining” about: An incompetent president, the worst attack on American soil during his watch, a failed unjustified war, w’s inability to capture OBL, the propagation of terrorism under w’s watch, billions of dollars being spent in a lost cause in Iraq while New Orleans rots… And the list goes on. But those are all just minor, peripheral concerns, right rw?

By Huge

January 23, 2007 06:56 PM | Link to this

Last night I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Today you pretend to be unaware. And indignant that in a public forum someone other than the intended recipient answered your question, so patenly incorrect that it simply begged for a response.

FACT: Bush said, “Facing clear evidence of PERIL, we cannot wait…” in his speech in Oct. 2002.

FACT: Peril’s definition is IMMINENT danger.

FACT: You said “Are still trying to peddle that LIE that President Bush said Iraq was an IMMINENT threat?

Have you absolutely no shame? Are you so cowardly you can’t even admit this glaring mistake?!!

I don’t see how you and the walking malapropism, BD, can even pretend to be believable on the subject of semantics anymore.

Make no mistake about it though, there are plenty of bright people reading this little confab. And I assure you that they can see you have spun and obfuscated yourself into a royal mess with this one…

By Dusty

January 23, 2007 06:58 PM | Link to this

Well, closing time,

How good it has been to read the honest and informed voices of Buy Danish and RW. And now Paul “sees the light”.

It is hard to keep a straight face on reading some of the posts. On the other hand it is discouraging to read the repeated lies and disillusions of other Americans. It does not seem possible but here it is. Right on this blog. Poor benighted liberals. No faith. No noticable patriotism. And an absolute hate for our elected President. That becomes discouraging. Left us hope for an early awakening of these losers. Before it is too late. I try not to get discouraged.

By One Voice

January 23, 2007 06:58 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Granny is Buy Danish, the aging unemployed housewife whose sole purpose in life is to blog 24-7 while her husband supports her and her son is at school.

By Huge

January 23, 2007 06:59 PM | Link to this

By rushncap January 23, 2007 06:47 PM

Didn’t realize you can’t read, RW. Oh well. Not all are lucky enough to be literate.

Unfortunately, rushncap, my friend, I have to concur. This guy is simply and hopelessly intransigent when he makes up his mind that facts are immaterial.

By rushncap

January 23, 2007 06:59 PM | Link to this

You’re confusing me with your buddy li’l andy, Muffin. He’s the one on the beastiality tip. And I’m actually not terribly interested in zoology, beyond a rather cursory, surface-level curiosity of a normal person.

The Limbaugh quotes are true. And irrelevant. You have failed to show any connection between Hussein and al Qaeda, and you’re trying to distract everyone from that fact.

P.S. It’s amusing, and curious, that you have links to beastiality movies at your fingertips. Thanks for sharing something about yourself and your interests. Of oucrse I’m not “stating” anything, just implying.

By One Voice

January 23, 2007 07:00 PM | Link to this

So rw, do you support the president’s “radical” plan or the conservatives who are opposing him?

By Ingi

January 23, 2007 07:01 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish-I’m a little dog that belongs to rushncap’s old neighbor. You don’t even want to know about his sex with animals ideas. We finally had to move.

By Dusty

January 23, 2007 07:01 PM | Link to this

rushncap a scientist?? That is funny. We used to call them laboratory assistants.