Mike Luckovich

By LuckoDull

January 25, 2007 08:00 AM | Link to this

Maybe the “passengers,” who are obviously a bunch of libs, could help bail water instead of whining and crying, no?

Who cares if the ship sinks as long as we get Bush, eh, pinko?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

It will be difficult, if not impossible, for President Bush to convince a Democratic Congress that the way to get more people health insurance is to levy a tax on millions of those who already have it. There’s a good reason for that: The notion is nonsense.

Keep these words in mind as we move forward into the new year, words not spoken by a Conservative publication railing against tax increases, but instead the words of the AJC slamming the president on any issue they can find.

Check this out: The AJC has said that raising taxes to provide health care is nonsense.

Think about that for a minute, it’s the democrat’s one and only thought, raising taxes.

But since it’s Bush’s idea, it’s no become “nonsense.”

That is why Mr. Rostenkowski has proposed another set of payroll-tax increases to shore it up, along with paying for Clinton’s health-care package and Labor Secretary Reich’s job-training package. Rosty’s truth-telling also includes lower benefits for new retirees and a cutback in cost-of-living adjustments.

That’s 1993 and the pinkos didn’t have to worry about lying through their socialist teeth.

By LuckoDull

January 25, 2007 08:01 AM | Link to this

In Iraq, the democrat resolution undermines the morale of the military and makes their task that much harder on the ground. When John McCain asked Lieutenant General David Petraeus that precise question during his confirmation hearing Tuesday, the next commander of Coalition operations in Iraq said, “It would not be a beneficial effect, sir.” And when Joe Lieberman asked if such a resolution would give the enemy cause to believe that Americans were divided, he added, “That’s correct, sir.” Several Senators protested and demanded that the general stay out of domestic politics, but his only offense was telling the truth. Of course the enemy would take comfort from any Senate declaration that Mr. Bush lacks domestic support.

Providing aid and comfort to America’s enemies, the terrorists. Hell of a way to “support” the troops. Mindless obstruction and shrill whining, not for the betterment of the country but for the excitement of the democrat party dullards.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Harry

January 25, 2007 08:04 AM | Link to this

Dance band on the Titanic Sing “Nearer, my God, to Thee” The iceberg’s on the starboard bow Won’t you dance with me.

Mama stood cryin’ at the dockside Sayin’ “Please son, don’t take this trip” I said “Mama, sweet Mama, don’t you worry none” “Even God couldn’t sink this ship.”

Well, the whistle blew and they turned the screws It turned the water into foam Destination sweet salvation Goodbye home sweet home.

I’m in the dance band on the Titanic Sing “Nearer, my God, to Thee” The iceberg’s on the starboard bow Won’t you dance with me.

There was a trombone and a saxophone The bass and drums were cookin’ up the bandstand And I was strummin’ in the middle with this dude on the fiddle And we were three days out from land.

And now the foghorn’s jammed and moanin’ Hear it groanin’ through the misty night I heard the lookout shout down “There’s icebergs around” “But still everything’s all right.”

Oh, the dance band on the Titanic Sing “Nearer, my God, to Thee” The iceberg’s on the starboard bow Won’t you dance with me.

They were burnin’ all the flares for candles In the banquet they were throwin’ in first class And we were blowin’ waltzes in the barroom When the universe went CRASH!

“There’s no way that this could happen” I could hear the old captain curse He ordered lifeboats away, that’s when I heard the chaplain say “Women and children and chaplains first.”

Well, they soon used up all of the lifeboats But there were a lot of us left on board I heard the drummer sayin’ “Boys, just keep playin’” “Now we’re doin’ this gig for the Lord.”

I heard the dance band on the Titanic Sing “Nearer, my God, to Thee” The iceberg’s on the starboard bow Won’t you dance with me.

There’s a wild-eyed boy in the radio shack He’s the last remaining guest He was tappin’ in a Morse code frenzy Tappin’ “Please God, S.O.S.”

Jesus Christ can walk on the water But a music man will drown They say that Nero fiddled while Rome burned up Well, I was strummin’ as the ship go down.

I’m in the dance band on the Titan

By MB

January 25, 2007 08:05 AM | Link to this

Ding, ding, ding! Give the man another Pulitzer. You nailed it Mike. Great work!

By Buy Danish

January 25, 2007 08:12 AM | Link to this

Sham alert!

Here’s Chuckie Schumer admitting that you can’t SUPPORT THE TROOPS! if you don’t support the mission.

Woops!

Later…

By Shawny

January 25, 2007 08:16 AM | Link to this

Here are some more cartoon ideas, should you be short in that regard:

Show the space shuttle seconds before disaster, and show Bush gluing (no, better yet, taping) on the protective tiles.

Show democrats as Indians and Bush as Custer, getting shot (mostly from the back).

Show the Titanic with democrats warning to slow down due to the iceberg (insurgent) threat with Bush behind the wheel saying “Surge” on.

Show the Apollo launchpad disaster, with astronauts inside suffocating from smoke inhalation with Bush outside the hatch door fumbling with keys.

Think hard…there has to be at least 1,000,000 other ways to tell the same story.

Today’s cartoon from the Pulitzer prize winning cartoonist sucks.

So…for every idiot that repeats the mantra that we went to war for the wrong reasons…were lied to…Bush’s illegal war…IT DOESN’T MATTER!

Frankly, it isn’t very PROGRESSIVE of you to live in the past and not work toward something better for all.

So…what do you want? If the plan is to pull out and go to Afghanistan, or whatever, with no support whatsoever in Iraq, then you will get what is illustrated here in TODAY’S CARTOON THAT DOESN’T SUCK:

http://davies.lohudblogs.com/

Now that is the democratic strategy. Note the pieces that are left of the country. The world would be so lucky if the boundaries are so defined. I doubt it.

By Quote(s) of the Day

January 25, 2007 08:22 AM | Link to this

“Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them!” Einstein, Albert

“Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” Einstein, Albert

“A man’s country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.” Curtis, George William

“Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t.

You cannot shirk this and be a man.

To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may.” Twain, Mark

By Shawny

January 25, 2007 08:28 AM | Link to this

Here is a pretty good editorial relating to this waste of congressional time, the non-binding resolution which does nothing but allow each congressperson to raise their hand and state their position.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009572

Get back to work passing real laws that have real impact.

By Andrew

January 25, 2007 08:28 AM | Link to this

spot on mike. it seems incredible how quickly the bipartison baker-hamilton report was swept away in favor of the “surge”, which in reality is a new marketing campaign (constructed by cheney’s office) for an old and ineffective strategy.

ill add also that i am currently studying in austria, where i have the luxury of seeing unedited video from iraq, which is filled with unthinkable scenes of violence and human calamity. i believe that if more americans had access to this kind of reality check they would be less apt to support sending more of our guys into the maelstrom.

in any case, good cartoon, definitely captures the essence of whats going on.

By Shawny

January 25, 2007 08:41 AM | Link to this

Fantastic toon here:

http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/MichaelRamirez/2007/01/1

Libs say we are causing the rising tide. Conservatives say pull that head out of the sand (or arse) or get hit by the killer wave.

Hippies say, “Surf’s up, dude!”

By Brian Curtis

January 25, 2007 08:47 AM | Link to this

BD: And all you have to do is read the article to note that he said NO SUCH THING.

But then, why let facts get in the way of another good ol’ neocon tantrum?

By Blackadder

January 25, 2007 08:49 AM | Link to this

“Get back to work passing real laws that have real impact.” -Shawny

Shawny - where were you when we needed you? We could have used your criticism and oversight last year. The 110th Congress has done more so far than the 109th did the whole time they were in session.

By who_really_cares_anyway?

January 25, 2007 08:53 AM | Link to this

…as the saying goes…”A picture paints a thousand words.” More succint than ANY argument!

By Blackadder

January 25, 2007 08:55 AM | Link to this

RW , Regarding your post from yesterday about my name change. What the hell is the matter with you? What’s the big deal? I never claimed to be new here. I never even insinuated that I was new. Where did you get that idea? I used to post under the name Proud Pinko Liberal. Since it was inspired by Andy and since I now ignore Andy’s delusional babblings, I decided that a change was in order. Occasionally I use another name as a heading (such as Quote of the Day).

I can’t believe you’re getting your panties in a twist over something so stupid. Is there an unwritten law about changing one’s name? I only mentioned Andy’s multiple name changes because I’ve never seen you criticize him for it. We all know it’s Andy. Since it apparently keeps you awake at night I’ll be sure and inform you if I change my name again. I sure wouldn’t want to be accused of committing such a heinous crime as changing my name.

Have you always been this anal? Aren’t there more important things to worry about in this world?

Best regards, Blackadder (for now)

By What kind of a nut job says:

January 25, 2007 08:57 AM | Link to this

So…for every idiot that repeats the mantra that we went to war for the wrong reasons…were lied to…Bush’s illegal war…IT DOESN’T MATTER!

By Paul

January 25, 2007 09:00 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish 8:12

Good link! I’m amazed Mr. “Talking Points” Gregory asked the question - restoring some credibility as a reporter, perhaps?

I’m going to say something now that may give you pause: I’ve never quite bought the entire “support the troops” PR play. When it started, as I recall, it was used in the context of care packages, etc. - rather a “regardless of the reasons you were sent to Iraq, we want to show you we value you as soldiers for the sacrifices you’ve chosen to make and we’ll do what we can to make the situation more bearable for you.”

Then it seems the concept morphed into a “criticize the war, you demoralize the troops and that doesn’t support them” - something I’d take issue with.

Then is seems the anti-Iraq crowd used it as political cover: “We may not support this war but we support the troops.” Some on this blog even took it to the extent that, when Gen Wesley Clark (US Army, retired), ex-Democratic Presidential candidate and current commentator, had his views, record, or positions critiqued, the cry went out “Stop bashing our troops!!!” That was the most illogical extension I’d seen.

Now the concept/phrase is used by Speaker Pelosi and other anti-Iraq/Bush Democrats to provide political cover for not taking meaningful action to end America’s military involvement in Iraq. In spite of the posturing before the election (and I still think the money/influence uberLeft of the Party will call them to account) the political position now is “Golly, we can’t vote to end funding for the war. That’d hurt the troops and we support the troops!” Nonsense. Congress did the same thing in a phased manner during VietNam - Nixon’s “secret plan to end the war” (by which he was elected - who says Democratic campaign managers don’t look at history?) was taking too long.

No one in the administration is going to call them on this - it could lead to actions they don’t want. DoD appropriations can have specific conditions applied. Funds can continue for soldiers’ pay, housing, food. Funds can continue for travel, equipment acquisition, repair and supplies. That can all continue while at the same time legislation can be written for “no combat operations” (specifically defined) or, even better “on

By LOCAL RECRUITER

January 25, 2007 09:01 AM | Link to this

SHAWNY - IM STILL WAITING FOR YOU.

IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO SERVE IN THE MARINES OR ARMY, WE CAN GET YOU A WHITE DRESS AND A SPOT WITH THE RED CROSS.

PUT DOWN YOUR KEYBOARD AND FIGHT YOU PUNY CHICKENHAWK.

THERE IS A PLACE IN THIS WAR FOR YOU, IF YOU REALLY WANT IT>

By Shawny

January 25, 2007 09:02 AM | Link to this

Blackadder …I am inclined to agree. The 109th didn’t do squat. Was basically a waste of taxpayer money.

Now on to abolishing the IRS, allowing loopholes for those with 10x my income to get out of taxes, and implement a flat % tax for all Americans.

By Seriously

January 25, 2007 09:05 AM | Link to this

Gosh Shawny, do you think there was a Schiavo type emergency that Congress missed? That would be a disaster.

Oh and to you critics, the Republicans put in all nighters to get Bills passed. Remember the liberal Medicare Drug Bill?

By Shawny

January 25, 2007 09:05 AM | Link to this

Nutjobs that look forward, not backward.

Nutjobs that think, “Ok, what next?”, or is that too progressive for you?

By Roy

January 25, 2007 09:07 AM | Link to this

The ship is sinking, but it is not because of more troops. It because the BUSH BASHERS are piling on! Get Bust at all cost!!! This not Bush’s war! It is America’s war with American soldiers, American dollars and our American president. It’s ashame that the liberals don’t consider themselves part of it.

By Blackadder

January 25, 2007 09:08 AM | Link to this

Ok, I know it’s a non-binding resolution — and I know it was just a Senate committee that supported that resolution yesterday — but it was very powerful to hear the morning news anchors reporting an actual repudiation of Bush over the Iraq war had passed somewhere on Capitol Hill — finally a repudiation. That was the first time we heard that…and it won’t be the last.

By Shawny

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

Dear dumb-arse posting as Local Recruiter….no, I would just as well lurk in the shadows of cyberspace, posting and hiding….(like you).

By Dept of Flat Tax Services

January 25, 2007 09:11 AM | Link to this

Due to the cost of the war in Iraq we will have to raise the flat tax from 30% to 53%.

Have a nice day.

Support the war on Iraq, Shop, Shop, Shop ‘till you drop. Its your patriotic duty.

By Paul

January 25, 2007 09:11 AM | Link to this

BD - my long 9:00 was too long:

No one in the administration is going to call them on this - it could lead to actions they don’t want. DoD appropriations can have specific conditions applied. Funds can continue for soldiers’ pay, housing, food. Funds can continue for travel, equipment acquisition, repair and supplies. That can all continue while at the same time legislation can be written for “no combat operations” (specifically defined) or, even better “only funds which shall be used shall be in conjunction with withdrawal of American active combat forces from Iraq. This shall in no way prevent American forces from defending themselves during this period.”

So the short version of the previous paragraph: the phrase is now being used by the antiIraq politicians (read: 2008 candidates) to rationalize not doing anything meaningful and to allow them to continue a long PR war against the Administration.

By N-GA

January 25, 2007 09:15 AM | Link to this

Decent toon ML…except the captain of the real Titanic went down with his ship.

By LOCAL RECRUITER

January 25, 2007 09:19 AM | Link to this

WOULDN”T YOU RATHER LURK IN BAGHDAD?

THERE”S A SPACE FOR YOU>>>>

By Roy

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

Shawny, you should have your own column. You are right on!

By getalife

January 25, 2007 09:30 AM | Link to this

w has lost lost 4 airliners, two World Trade Towers, two wars, one American city, hundreds of billions in Iraq, the Mexican border,selling infrastructure, trillions in budget surplus, our prestige, our standing in the world, the respect others held for U.S. ideals, and our priorities.

Yet the wingnuts keep cheering on the cheerlader.

Amazing.

By Midori

January 25, 2007 09:35 AM | Link to this

And as we all know, N-GA, this captain has no intention of going down with this one.

Spot on, Mike.

Like fine wine, you get better and better.

By Truthman

January 25, 2007 09:54 AM | Link to this

Except for the overt anti-semitism, here’s an excellent piece about the $$$ driving W’s illegal, immoral war!

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedneprofis070120mustread3awhyisnt.htm

Enjoy!!

By Truthman

January 25, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

My goodness “Dick” Cheney is a worthless POS!!

He is the King of Denial!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/cheney/index.html

He will look so good in prison stripes!! Basturd (misspelling intended) MF!

By Truthman

January 25, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Hey neo-conmen! Don’t hand me that BS about “you dems don’t want to win! W is finally putting more troops on the ground and you don’t like that.”

Here’s the deal on that one, skippy! The neo-conmen and women had control of the entire government for six years and sat on their fat, war-profiteering asses never listening to the “commanders on the ground.”

Now that the good guys are back in power, you little neo-conmen and women are crying wolf.

You had six years to fix your mess. Now, we’re going to fix it before more of our fine young men and women die for your lies!!

By Paul

January 25, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

Truthman 10:18

“Commanders on the ground” do not make policy, plans or strategy. They execute it. They also provide feedback, at which point adjustments can be made. Top elected officials lay out the overall concept of operations - then the military professionals devise the plans. Unfortunately, many of them “got it wrong” through a combination of unforseeable events (remember the ridicule Rumsfeld endured over his “know unknowns” comment? That’s part of the planning process) and not adapting quickly enough for many civilians.

By Shawny

January 25, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

I don’t cheer this particular cheerleader. Frankly, I think the current administration has been a failure in many ways.

If we had a time machine and spent our time playing Monday morning quarterback (as many of you love), then GHWB should have continued on into Baghdad, taken out the murder of 100s of 1000s of his own people when we had the support of the world and y’all wouldn’t have batted an eye, nor would I.

Now comes the son to finish the job, except too much time has gone by since 1991’s failure to complete the mission. Now we are the invaders and not the saviors as before. Worse even, planning is horrible and the results disastrous. Ok, I buy (most) of that. History should never be ignored, but at the same time, history shouldn’t be dwelled upon when there are bigger fish to fry.

Which brings us to:

If for #1, you say leave…pull your ripcord as you exit the hatch of the flaming jet vs. staying in the seat and attempting to land it, then answer #2.

By Kurtis R.E. Segars

January 25, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

How man sinking ship cartoons is this for Mike? Does the AJC pay for him to rehash the same stuff over and over again?

By Truthman

January 25, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

Bush has always said he does what the commanders on the ground want him to do.

That’s BS!! As someone who works for the Army (22+years), I KNOW that the commanders on the ground don’t want to be “retired” as Shinseki was after he said we couldn’t do the job without a half-million troops.

In a nutshell: kiss Cheney/Bush’s a* and keep your job!! Simple as that.

Yes, there are alot of progressives who work in DoD. And I know many Soldiers, both enlisted and officer, who do not want their children to enter any service because of Bush and Cheney’s disastrous policies.

That is a fact none of you can dispute because I work it every day!!

By Huge

January 25, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

“So…for every idiot that repeats the mantra that we went to war for the wrong reasons…were lied to…Bush’s illegal war…IT DOESN’T MATTER!”

This was already addressed at 8:57. I too am fairly amazed that Shawny finds it idiotic that many, many people in this country feel that we invaded Iraq for EXACTLY the wrong reasons.

And yes there are still some blindly stubborn and partisan fools who will die before admiting their lie that Bush did not say Iraq was an imminent threat to our national security.

Even so, very large numbers of once die-hard gop supporters have awoken and seen the light. And they too see that this war was a fvckup from the get go and their commander-in-chief is neither credible nor competent.

I just couldn’t disagree more when you say that that doesn’t matter.

But if your point was “now that we’re in this quagmire, what’s next?”, I agree; that is more relevant.

By Jesus is a Democrat

January 25, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

I liked the cartoon. I would like to ask the wingnuts why the media is considered liberal when they report on this miserable failure who is the worst mistake in US history? I don’t think they report enough on the corruption of this administration! When the media reported on Clinton were they considered the conservative media?

By Paul

January 25, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Shawny 10:33

May I expand upon your options?

“If you say “leave”: how? Stern letters and resolutions are so much hot air.

“If you want to continue with letters and resolutions” then aren’t you essentially retaining the “Bush Strategy” before the surge proposal? That’s sadly ironic.

You’re correct about looking back - looking forward, though, this should serve as a cautionary example for our dealings with Iran. Notice I’m not advocating the uberleft position of “talk at all costs, avoid confrontation at all costs.” This is the time for adapting the “lessons learned” from Iraq.

By Shawny

January 25, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

“This was already addressed at 8:57. I too am fairly amazed that Shawny finds it idiotic that many, many people in this country feel that we invaded Iraq for EXACTLY the wrong reasons.”

No, I am not amazed. Re-read 10:33. I do understand why people feel this. I personally do not feel that (given the information available on 9/12/01) we should have or shouldn’t have gone in there.

“But if your point was “now that we’re in this quagmire, what’s next?”, I agree; that is more relevant.”

That is EXACTLY the point. I am not saying that it doesn’t matter why we are there, but am saying that it is MORE important to move on and focus on the future.

that is all.

By @@

January 25, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Well ml, at least you’ve got Bush and friends standing firmly on the “forecast-le” and not enthusiastic, like the Democrats to accept the “aft-ermath” as the safe place to be.

It’s a huge propellor that lies beneath the surface, dangerously churning.

Radical extremists can only eat fish that they, themselves have slaughtered. Otherwise, it’s forbidden.

They have to slaughter their chickens too. I wonder…do Democrats taste like chicken?

By who_really_cares_anyway?

January 25, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

Truthman:

Amen! Should the draft ever be restarted, I would rather my sons leave this country forever, rather than be sacrificed for Ws ego.

Then, recently, we discovered that dyslexics are not accepted into the military. I’ve never been happy about my child’s diagnosis..until that day…

By AntiRadical

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

OK toon ML. The “Down with the Ship” metaphor is becoming a little stale, though, isn’t it?

The President’s SOTU speech was pretty good. It sounds as if he has adopted a large postion of the Dem party line (except Iraq). It still amazes me that the Rep rank and file hasn’t fallen into lock-step with the President regarding his “guest worker” recomendations.

The latino voting block is up for grabs and the Reps are throwing it away when they should have it tucked away nicely in their vest pocket. Latinos are a highly religious voting block. They are hard working, pay-as-you-go, anti-tax, but pro-entitlement oriented individuals who would be very open to the Rep agenda if the Rep rank and file did not oppose their interests in order to play to their failed and apparently emmasculated current core constiuency.

Reps have already lost the current majority of American voters. Do they imagine that in another couple of years, with the rate of even the “legal” Latino immigrants expanding exponentially, that they will not be left out in the cold on election days. Reps should embrace the Latino vote as their last and best hope for resurrection while they still have any chance of doing so.

By Shawny

January 25, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

Great Q, JC is a Dem…

Libs think the media is biased and too soft on the republicans. Conservatives think the media is biased and too soft on the democrats.

You think a lot more dirt should be dug up on the current administration (and I am not arguing). You say they were relentless on Clinton. YOU are biased.

I think they were soft on Clinton. I listen to certain interviews with Shrillary and think, “geez, could you put that softball on a tee to make it even easier to hit?”.

I think they were WAY WAY too soft on C McKinney, the most embarrassing “representative” GA has ever had.

I think the are too soft on EVERYONE.

Why? Because they like their jobs and need their jobs. Because journalists and reporters don’t want to have to perform manual labor to make a living. Because politicians and political organizations and parties wield too much power. Fear of retribution keeps them in line. It is easy for you or I to say they are scum and need replacing, but for a reporter to print it lessens their job security.

By the way, HE is not a Democrat…HE would not approve of many of the issues that Democrats approve of, and you know what they are. Republican? definitely not. I am thinking compassionate independant, not beholden to any political party, their influence, or their monies.

By Blackadder (for now)

January 25, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

What is Dick Cheney drinking these days if he doesn’t consider the “situation” in Iraq to be terrible? Just what in the blue hell does it take for him to consider Iraq a terrible place? 100 dead Iraqi’s in one day must not count for anything in Deadeye Dicks world. Blowing the back of the heads off of 4 American contractors must not be too terrible either in Dick Cheney’s world.

On CNN Cheney tried like hell to paint a rosy picture of what “we” have accomplished in Iraq. He was argumentative with Blitzer, not answering the questions put to him, just sounding like a broken record with the same rhetoric we have come to expect from this man that sits a heartbeat away from being President.

When asked why he thought Hillary Clinton wouldn’t make a good president his remarks showed his ignorance and that his allegiance is to his party, not his country when he said:

“Because she’s a Democrat.”

When Blitzer asked whether the administration’s credibility had been hurt by “the blunders and the failures” in Iraq, instead of providing examples to support his position that Iraq is going swimmingly, he said:

“Wolf, Wolf, I simply don’t accept the premise of your question. I just think it’s hogwash.”

Bush has admitted in two speeches lately that there have been mistakes, there have been short-sighted goals..but not Cheney. He refuses to admit to anything going wrong. Cheney’s delusional view of the war in Iraq was summed up quite well for me with this line:

“Bottom line is that we’ve had enormous successes and we will continue to have enormous successes.”

If Iraq is the face of “enormous success”..I would hate to see his idea of abject failure. His attempt to spin the war as a success was a failure because over 60% of America isn’t buying what he is selling any longer.

By Buy Danish

January 25, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

Brainless,

When asked, “How do you support the troops if you don’t support the mission”, Chuckie responded, “That’s the difficulty…we’re figuring it out righ now”.

In other words, you can’t but we’ll manufacture some spin for the Useful idiots.

Blackadder,

Andy changed his name because he was nickjacked relentlessly, and you admit that we always knew who it was. He was not hiding behind a different name, and his name changes were editorial comments in and of themselves. You don’t have that excuse, and it is in no way obvious who you were.

Others change their name to create phony bloggers who agree with them and tell them how fabulous they are, and some, like Stalker Boy, do it to…stalk.

This name-changing for the heck of it routine is really just a form of juvenile deception, as if you’re using this blog as some sort of stage to try out new characters for your game of make-believe - which is basically how liberals live their lives.

By getalife

January 25, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

I can’t wait to see cheney testify under oath on the witness stand.

By Blackadder (for now)

January 25, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

Geez BD, what a conspiracy filled world you live in. The reason we know it’s Andy is because of the pattern of the posts and the fact that they are filled with useless crap.

You are reading WAY too much into my reasons for change. I just like a different name once in a while. No deception intended.

I’ll be sure and add you to my list of wingnuts who will be informed of any change in names.

As I asked RW - does it really matter so much and have you always been this anal?

By LuckoDull

January 25, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

By Spammie January 25, 2007 11:11 AM OK toon ML. The “Down with the Ship” metaphor is becoming a little stale, though, isn’t it?

And here I was thinking that blaming everything in the world on the Republicans when the democrats are the ones in charge was becoming a “little stale.”

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Paul

January 25, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

AntiRadical 11:11

Very, very good points. I think many Republicans support a guest worker program, or some variation. Dems, too (unless it’s seen as a block to unfettered immigration). But the Rep party has it’s hard-core “conservative” faction (how this is a conservative issue is not clear) that can effectively block action. Didn’t Dems do a bit of talk about how the guest worker program was anti-Latino to garner support?

The latest Gallup Poll shows 70% of Americans are pretty worried about the current immigration situation.

BTW - was driving home yesterday, turned on O’Reilly’s radio show (Goldi, Midori, please relax for a moment -I know, “everything you hear on his show is conservative garbage” and “ridicule the message by trashing the source”). Had a Congressman on - O’Reilly (OR) said Dems don’t have a plan for dealing with Iran. Congressman disagreed - said he’d redeploy half the troops along the Iran-Iraq border and another 25,000 along the Syrian-Iraq border. (this avoided the question, but it did include reference to Iran). OR said “I like your plan). Then there was a bit or airtime silence as they joked back and forth. OR then asked “what about our southern border?” Congressman said “Nat’l Guard, Reserves, whatever it takes.” Another bout of joshing.

The Congressman?

Congressman Tony Weiner, Democrat, Queens and Brooklyn. Got his start working for Sen Schumer. If you don’t recognize his name and policies you may recognize his picture.

Link:http://www.house.gov/weiner/

By @@

January 25, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish:

Before I go.

What I’ve noticed about the name changes is that when the leftists are backed into a corner, left with no viable argument, an onslaught of unfamiliar names with nothing constructive to add, come spewing forth. Always launching a mindless attack on conservatives.

Whether I agree with them or not, I admire those on the left, who consistently post under one name.

The others? Just chicken of the “now you see me, now you don’t” variety.

A childish game of “peek-a-boo”. I’ll show you.

Show us what Charley? That you’ve got nothing?

By getalife

January 25, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

@@ said “spewing”. LOL.

I wonder how many names “Dull” has posted under.

By Buy Danish

January 25, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

Blackadder (fantasy role player),

You’re accusing me of “living in a conspiracy filled world”? That’s rich.

The fact is that Andy was relentlessly nickjacked. No conspiracy there.

The fact is that he made it obvious who he was when he changed his name. No conspiracy there.

You can do what you want. I’m just pointing out that it’s juvenile and deceptive and thus typical moonbat behavior. But hey, change your name as often as you want - I enjoy it when you jackasses prove me right with so little effort expended on my part.

By Truthman

January 25, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

My attacks on the neo-conmen and women are very mindful and full of facts that can be referenced on most mainstream media outlets (No, that doesn’t include FAUX News)!!

P.S. FAUX News can’t give up on it’s lie that Barack Obama attended a madrasa. That, and many, many more reasons, are why FAUX News is not credible - except to Cheney and other neo-conmen and women

By Blackadder (for now)

January 25, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

Hear that Andy? @@ says you and I engage in childish games of “peek-a-boo”.

@@ - please grow up. There are many more important things to discuss than a friggin name change.

This is the last I will say on this useless subject.

Whine all you want.

By Blackadder (for now)

January 25, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Another lie in a long line of lies. Bush claimed in his State of the Union speech, that an attack on an L.A. skyscraper had been averted. This was universally debunked as a hoax by the Mayor of L.A., CIA, FBI and NSA personnel and counter-terror experts nearly a year ago when it first surfaced. By regurgitating this fraud, Bush is showing just how desperate he is by knowingly lying to the American people.

By Truthman

January 25, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Another fine group of Texas college students:

http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fapnews.myway.com%2Farticle%2F20070125%2FD8MS8LP00.html

See, we progressives don’t ridicule people of color or those who are less well off than we. We also don’t kill doctors or radio hosts or others we don’t agree with.

But, you know that “culture of live” Bush and Cheney are so fond of talking about. I wonder why they don’t just paint “Arbeit Macht Frei” on the Statue of Liberty and show how they really feel!!!

By Midori

January 25, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

2 election workers convicted of rigging ‘04 presidential recount

By Truthman

January 25, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

“Nickjacked?” What is that?

I know of Lake Nickajack in Tennessee, but I do not know the term “nickjacked.”

BTW, I only post as “Truthman.” I need no other moniker!

By Truthman

January 25, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

So, Rummy still works for DoD?

What a schmuck!!

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/RumsfeldtransitionofficeinPentagonraising0125.html

By Buy Danish

January 25, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

@@,

Here’s a little stand up routine from Ann Coulter on Hillary.

I studied tapes of Hillary feigning surprise at hearing about Monica to help me look surprised upon learning that she’s running.

And -

Mrs. Clinton’s acolytes are floating the idea of Hillary as another Margaret Thatcher to get past the question, “Can a woman be elected president?” This is based on the many, many things Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher have in common, such as the lack of a Y chromosome and … hmmm, you know, I think that’s it.

And -

Webb then palavered on about the vast military experience of his entire family in order to better denounce the war in Iraq. As long as Democrats keep insisting that only warriors can discuss war, how about telling the chick to butt out?

By @@

January 25, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

…and one more thing. I especially enjoyed Blackadder’s response to me last week (I think) acknowledging a humorous post I made. Somewhere within the mix of posts, I responded with a little play on his/her name. Addressed him/her as “BlackUdderlyRidiculous”.

Immediately he/she responded with some claim that I had viciously attacked him/her. I had spewed forth with name-calling and venom. Not namejacking (a favorite pasttime of the leftists), but namecalling…

He/she immediately told me not to address him/her unless he/she addressed me first. “Udderly” ridiculous.

Just a wee bit overly sensitive I’d say.

Getalife:

It felt kind of funny using the word “spewing”, I’ve never done it.

You’re on the left…what caused your persuasion to namejack Andy causing him to stay one step ahead of the leftists? I’ve always wondered why they needed to do that. Maybe you could tell me.

By RE

January 25, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

Wasn’t andy kicked off of this site?

now he is back as luckodull. Whats the story

By Paul

January 25, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

Truthman at 12:08

So, what’s your point? Opening this up could get pretty ugly with some on this forum. Is your point Texas college students are racists? Tie Texas colleges to Bush? That “progressives” are pure and “conservatives” are Neanderthals?

You can go point-counterpoint all day long - doesn’t solve anything, as examples of idiocity, poor judgement, stupidity and bad behavior can be found all across the spectrums (grammarians - it is not “spectra”).

Here’s how it could go: Hate Crime Hoaxes

Though not mentioned by the media, hate crime hoaxes are quite common in America, especially on college campuses. The Los Angeles Times claims there have been over 20 phony hate crimes on college campuses from 1997—2005, but even that number seems low.

The first and only serious study of hoax crimes was conducted in1995 by independent scholar Laird Wilcox. In a self—published booklet titled, Crying Wolf: Hate Crime Hoaxes in America, Wilcox documented hundreds of hoax crimes and analyzed who commits them and why. Wilcox found that blacks are the worst offenders when it comes to staging phony hate crimes. While some perpetrate hoaxes to get insurance money or to cover their own misdeeds, many, particularly on college campuses, stage them to generate sympathy for their racial agenda.

About halfway down the page on a page about the Duke travesty.

Link:http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/04/racism101at_duke.html

So examples abound. Seems to me the intent is important - dumb acts or calculated acts.

BTW - “Nitjacked” is a rather creepy terms. Too much association with lice. Then again, maybe that’s the intent.

By Truthman

January 25, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

Ann Coulter can be tried for treason along with Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy and Wolfie!!

Basturds all!!

By Buy Danish

January 25, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

{{See, we progressives don’t ridicule people of color or people less well off than we are}}

Truthyman,

Ever heard of Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice?

Ever read all the “trailer park” comments from your side of the aisle, right here at this blog?

Come to think of it, ever heard of Paula Jones?

By getalife

January 25, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

@@,

Don’t know but he should post under “Andy”, anyname can be wanked.

Midori,

I was just reading about the stolen election in 2004. It will be interesting to watch if they snitch on the higher ups to avoid prison time just like the mafia.

By @@

January 25, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish:

I stopped reading when I came to this part of your link:

“the fact that her leading Democratic opponent is named “Barack Hussein Obama.” Or, as he’s known at CNN, “Osama.” Or, as he’s known on the Clinton campaign, (((“The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations.”)))

So I, a Republican, have more respect for Barack Obama than his own party does?

This is the kind of crap that has totally turned me off from the leftist party. They’re touting their presidential candidates as one “hispanic”, one “woman”, and one “black”. Anything about their qualifications? What uniters those Democrats are.

I’ll have to read the rest later. I’ve really got to get going. Hillary’s offensive tactics have got my eyes crossing. I’ll be dangerous behind the wheel.

By AntiRadical

January 25, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

Hi Paul @ 11:44,

I agree that many of the Rep rank and file support the President’s “guest worker” proposals. Unfortunately, they are a minority within the party and I beieve the party’s vocal opposition is submarining the party’s welfare for many years to come.

I think the Dems are supportive of the measure; this is the only area where the President and the Dems see eye to eye and, afterall, the Dems wisely never miss a chance to rope in a power voting block. Reps should learn from their example if they want to survive as a viable political entity.

The key to prosperity for either political party is the support of moderates. Dems under Clinton forgot that principle and paid the price; Reps now seem determined to repeat the same mistake of taking moderates for granted. Reps shouldn’t be too worried, however. If history is any indicator, the Dems will take off on another round of pursuing their own peculiar wedge issues and the moderate pendulum will swing to the Reps, once again.

Perhaps the only lasting legacy from the “Republican Revolution” of the 90’s is that it conservatized the Dem party line as they scrambled to appeal to moderates. Now the Rep party line will need to adapt and liberalize itself to some degree in order to keep up with the same changing demographics.

By Paul

January 25, 2007 01:00 PM | Link to this

AntiRadical

Yeah, and my soapbox for some time has been the uberleft Dems and waaaayright Reps with the money, insinuation into the political process and activism have an inordinate influence on the primary process. Hence we see the Hillary or Romney example - say what you think or state a moderate, centrist view, shuffle left or right to pick up support from the powerbrokers, then dance around trying to reconcile the two.

Good point on guest workers. Now the real question - Democratic majority. An issue and proposal they endorse. Will they put the country first and work with the Administration and endorse the plan? Or stonewall for partisan political purposes? Personally, I don’t like the odds.

By Blackadder

January 25, 2007 01:01 PM | Link to this

“(AP) New Orleans is still a mess and the pace of recovery across the Gulf Coast from Hurricane Katrina’s strike remains achingly slow after 17 months. But none of this captured President Bush’s attention on the year’s biggest night for showcasing policy priorities.

In the president’s State of the Union speech last year, delivered just five months after the disaster, the devastation merited only 156 words out of more than 5,400.

On Tuesday night, the president spoke for almost exactly as long before a joint session of Congress. But Katrina received not a single mention.”

New Orleans is still a craphole and these people have their knickers in a wad over friggin name changes on a blog.

Maybe they should have gotten the 109th Congress to put a moratorium on blog name changes. It would have been more important than what they did accomplish.

By AntiRadical

January 25, 2007 01:06 PM | Link to this

Paul- I think the term is nic-jacking, as in nickname-hijacking. Last year there were several weeks of this activity. Andy’s nic would be jacked to jack-confess that he was a member of the man-boy love association, for instance. Getalife might have jack-confessed to being a member of an al-Queda sleeper cell. It was entertaining for awhile but rapidly became completely ridiculous. Eventually the pirates became bored with the activity and moved on to greener pastures.

The name-changing that is still seen here is a byproduct of that episode in the history of the ML blog. I think the idea is that it’s impossible to jack a moving target, hence the incessant name changing of the more radical posters who were the primary targets.

By NightTrain

January 25, 2007 01:07 PM | Link to this

Truthman,(12:08) Are you implying that Texas schools are racists?

How about a comment on the lefts Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc. That fine Democratic organization that don’t allow any whites as members ‘cause, as the name implies, this is a black only club. “A Democrat Congressman from Missouri, reinforced that opinion, saying: “It’s an unwritten rule. It’s understood. It’s clear.”“>http://www.redstate.com/stories/freshmantargets/racistdemocratsenforcesegregationoftheirownparty)

So much for the Truth…man!

By reebok

January 25, 2007 01:14 PM | Link to this

ML, this cartoon may well win you another Pulitzer. Absolutely perfect. THANK YOU.

By rushncap

January 25, 2007 01:26 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry, @@, but any party that elects Bush has no right to complain about “qualifications”. How’s this: both Obama and Clinton can eat a pretzel without the help of staff members.

By AntiRadical

January 25, 2007 01:27 PM | Link to this

Paul @ 1:00,

You hit that nail right on the head. The Dems are going to use this weakness in Rep party solidarity as a political football as long as they possibly can.

I believe that neither party has its’ finger on the solution to the illegal immigrant issue. The only way to tackle this problem is through the use of bio-metrically encoded national IDs. Fences are a waste of effort and are too easily circumvented, ditto with electronic surveilance. There is no good reason that each US citizen shouldn’t be issued one and only one ID card that would be used for every governmental function. One ID to serve as passport, driver’s license, SS card, fishing permit, etc.

Coupled with tough enforcement of existing immigration regulations, a national bio-metric ID system would stop the problem of illegal immigration (as well as many other security issues) overnight. You’re absolutely correct- neither party wants to solve this most important of all national security problems. Their own agendas and well-being remain more important to them than the national welfare.

By Buy Danish

January 25, 2007 01:28 PM | Link to this

Continuing with a theme, more from the Democrat’s world of make-believe.

According to the College Board, the average tuition adjusted for inflation has jumped 86 percent at public colleges and 52 percent at private colleges since the 1991-92 school year during a period of low inflation. Loans are capped so students don’t take on excessive debt, tuition isn’t.

If the Democrats really wanted to help students then maybe they should be taking aim at the schools that have raised tuitions with impunity to pay for higher faculty salaries and fatten their already large endowments. But since academia is largely a bastion for liberal thought that would be like biting the hand that feeds them and so the schools are safe from any attack by the party.

Additionally, colleges now offer all sorts of BS PC courses which require hiring BS PC professors to indoctrinate, err, teach - further raising tuition costs.

By DebbieDoRight

January 25, 2007 01:53 PM | Link to this

Why would the Congressional Black Caucus let in a Senator who ran one of the most racially sterotypical campaign ads against his Black Opponents in the senate race? That’s sort of like letting the fox date the chicken.

By AntiRadical

January 25, 2007 01:55 PM | Link to this

BD @1:28,

I’d have to take exception to the liberal academia argument; that one has been batted about for far too long. There are many conservatives in academia; possibly more than there are liberals. Perhaps the liberal faction is just more vocal?

In any case, it is rather disingenuous to make the claim that academia is a liberal bastion as the implication then is that it is only liberals that are intelligent enough to achieve tenure. I really don’t think that is the impression that you would like to make, is it?

Remember that Newt Gringrich himself, is a member of that same intelligentsia that you decry (taught at West GA College if I recall correctly).

See you guys another day, wish I could stay longer but duty calls.

By rushncap

January 25, 2007 01:59 PM | Link to this

It’s appropriate, of course, that conservatives love to attack education. Makes perfect sense. Knowledge is the biggest enemy of conservatism. Thanks for reinforcing stereotypes, Muffin.

By Midori

January 25, 2007 02:05 PM | Link to this

A CIA employee who gave regular intelligence briefings to Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., testified yesterday that shortly after the leak of a CIA operative’s identity, the pair was given a stark warning that the leak could lead to the deaths of people who aided American intelligence gathering abroad.

“I thought there was a very grave danger to leaking the name of a CIA officer,” the briefer from Langley, Craig Schmall, said he told Messrs. Cheney and Libby during a morning session at the vice president’s residence. “Foreign intelligence services where she served now have the opportunity to investigate everyone whom she had come in contact with. They could be arrested, tortured, or killed…”

WOW!!!

Plame sure had a lot of pull/responsibility for a “desk jockey”.

By LuckoDull

January 25, 2007 02:06 PM | Link to this

By Spammie January 25, 2007 01:06 PM Eventually the pirates became bored with the activity and moved on to greener pastures.

Or on to the care of mental health professionals would be my guess.

Best of luck to them.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Blackadder

January 25, 2007 02:13 PM | Link to this

rushncap - conservatives tend to hate what/who they fear.

By Bill

January 25, 2007 02:14 PM | Link to this

What a pile of crap by wannabee columnists!

By LuckoDull

January 25, 2007 02:17 PM | Link to this

By Midori January 25, 2007 02:05 PM “Foreign intelligence services where she served now have the opportunity to investigate everyone whom she had come in contact with. They could be arrested, tortured, or killed…”

Sure thing Midori, right after Niger declared war on us, invaded Langley, Va, set up their torture shop and found the “Vanity Fair” photographers.

The only people who’s lifes are in danger from knowing Valerie Plame’s name is mine.

And that’s from dying of laughter.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By N-GA

January 25, 2007 02:18 PM | Link to this

Another US soldier pleads guilty to murdering unarmed Iraqi prisoners

And this soldier’s CinC is……? And these murders were done on whose watch…? And who is sending more soldiers over to Iraq to do what….? And we are slowly changing the Muslim world’s view of Americans how….?

By Huge

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

After serving nine months in Afghanistan and a month in Iraq, Sgt. Victor Langarica returned to his Decatur home with a changed attitude, said his mother, Pearl Lucas. He was quiet, she said, and haunted by memories of maimed children.

As the war effort turned more toward Iraq, he turned more against the war effort. And when he was called to return to Iraq last summer, he did not want to go. He feared he’d die, for no good reason, his mother said.

On Saturday, Langarica, an Army mechanic, was among 12 soldiers killed when their Black Hawk helicopter crashed in Baghdad. Officials say the crash is under investigation.

“The nightmare that I was running away from … came true,” said Pearl Lucas, who is 52.

His mother is more than grieving — she is bitter. She has lost faith in this war and sees her son’s death as senseless.

“He is the one who killed my son,” she said of the president. “There is nothing he can tell me to make me feel better.”

By Midori

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

Andy,

go crawl back under your rock.

your logic is about as twisted as, well, you.

You are my very own “Exhibit A”.

By Blackadder

January 25, 2007 02:29 PM | Link to this

Some Senate Republicans block the minimum wage increase. Sometimes I wonder both how most Republicans in Congress can live with themselves, and why they still think opposing extremely popular legislation is a smart political move.

Republicans continuing to suck up to business interests like this is going to give Democrats a big trifecta in 2008. Just look at the list of Republicans up for election in 2008 who voted against a clean minimum wage bill: Cornyn, Dole,. Domenici, McCain, Smith and Sununu. I don’t care how red your state is—voting against the minimum wage isn’t popular anywhere. The only place it is popular is among business interests who will be donating to the election campaigns of these Republicans. Even in defeat, Republicans treat government as basically a way to reward the key figures of their election machinery.

This bill will pass eventually. There is no way Republicans can hold out on this one indefinitely, considering how popular it is. Democrats need to keep pushing this as long and hard as possible until five more Republicans are forced to cave, even if that means the bill won’t pass until 2009.

By NightTrain

January 25, 2007 02:33 PM | Link to this

AntiRadical, (1:27) Spoken like a true fan of Hitler! Stop people on the street and demand there “papers”.

By Midori

January 25, 2007 02:37 PM | Link to this

Carl Bernstein: Bush Administraton Has Done ‘Far Greater Damage’ Than Nixon

By N-GA

January 25, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this

BlackAdder,

In 1995 there were approximately 470,000 Americans earning minimum wage. There were millions more earning $1-2 more than minimum wage. The minimum wage issue is really a myth…more politics than substance.

The Senate Republicans actually stopped passage of the bill via filibuster. They want to attach $8 billion in small business tax savings to the bill (which I understand will actually happen since the dems want to get this legislation passed). These tax savings are supposed to help offset the cost of raising wages. Oh well….compromise works. The question is “Why didn’t this bill get brought to a vote when the GOP controlled Congress? When all is said and done, it is a minor bill when compared to SSN, Medicare, War, Energy, pollution, etc.

By @@

January 25, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this

There really is a lot going on in the Middle East outside of Iraq. Examples…

New US strategy on Iran emerges from Davos

Another…

‘Flame of violence must be checked’

and another…

“I believe, personally, that we should move on a two-state theory - the right of creation of the Palestinian state. The earlier we do it the better for peace. At the same time we should recognise the existence of Israel.”

more promising news…

Call to create bloc of Western Asian and Arab countries

Shaikh Hamad Bin Jasem Bin Jabr Al Thani, Qatar’s first deputy prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, said the Arab world “lags behind the civilisation movement” despite its past contribution to the development of humanity.

and planning ahead just in case we let them down….

“Because of domestic pressures in the US, the US will feel it is not possible for them to continue undertaking this burden, then I think we should consider the possibility of internationalising the whole thing and go to the UN and have a restructured multinational force under UN control,” he said.

Let me go ahead and apologize for being an optimist. It doesn’t seem to be fashionable for Americans these days, but I’ll remain one forever in spite of what life serves up.

By RE

January 25, 2007 02:50 PM | Link to this

“This war,” said Bush, “is an ideological struggle. … To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come to kill us.”

But the “conditions” that drove those 19 men “to come to kill us” is our dominance of their world, our authoritarian allies and Israel.

They were over here because we are over there.

This guy has it pegged, he has been right all along

By RE

January 25, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this

What every terrorist fears most is human freedom — societies where men and women make their own choices.”

Very American. But the truth is terrorists do not fear free societies, they flourish in them. The suicide bombers of 9-11, Madrid and London all plotted their atrocities in free societies. From the Red Brigades, who murdered Italy’s Aldo Mori, to the Baader-Meinhoff Gang, who tried to kill Al Haig, to the Basque ETA, the IRA and the Puerto Rican terrorists who tried to assassinate Harry Truman, free societies are where they do their most effective work.

Stalin’s Russia and Nazi Germany had no trouble with terrorists.

By @@

January 25, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this

Well, let me clarify on that last one. I am optimistic about the new U.N. Secretary General, Ban is his name?

My optimism on the U.N. of old remains guarded.

By Paul

January 25, 2007 02:52 PM | Link to this

Midori

If you’d like to keep this Scooter thing going, alleging all the damage/conspiracy/blame from revealing Ms Plame’s name, have you at least read the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? If you haven’t, it’s here:

Link:http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html

You may want to take particular note of Sec 606 subparagraph 4. It defines a Covert Agent!!! Wow!!! And lists conditions for prosecution!!! It was really, really difficult to find. That’s why Fitzgerald and his crack team couldn’t find it.

Seriously, there was a short discussion yesterday that a prosecutable offense is what the law, as written, provides. Actions may be stupid, dumb, reprehensible or calculating, but that does not mean they are criminal acts. That’s often how the law gets changed. There are other statutes that could be called in… but Fitzgerald hasn’t.

So, I find it amusing you are horrified at politicians acting like… politicians.

BTW - shouldn’t the target of your ire be Armitage, since he’s admitted to being the source? Or Fitzgerald, as he obviously didn’t do his job and prosecute the offenders for endangering lives?

Oh, wait, I forgot. “I hate Bush.” Got it.

By rushncap

January 25, 2007 02:53 PM | Link to this

@@, there is a difference between being an “optimist” and living in fantasy land. Optimism should not mean, as it does in your case, “Shut your eyes real tight, hope for the best and pretend like everything is hunky-dory.” That’s lunacy. Optimism must be coupled with realism. We must look at a situation and say “I believe things will be good, but to ensure that they will be good there are certain things we must do.” Hoping really really hard solves nothing.

And to that end, to ensure that our optimism is not misplaced, we must act. Getting rid of Bush would be a nice first step. Putting him and his administration in jail is a good second. Trying to clean up all the messes he leaves would be third through ninety fourth.

By Goldie

January 25, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

It’s interesting that the Neo-Con trolls here on the blog keep insisting that Scooter and Cheney did NOTHING wrong by giving away secret information about the CIA to news reporters… and yet there’s not a peep so far coming from Scooter’s attorney about that lie. So far, not a single word from the attorney stating that Scooter’s trial is unwarranted. So far, his attorney has made no mention of Valerie Plame being “just a desk jockey” at the CIA, and therefore the whole trial has no merit. I wonder why???? Because it’s all just made up lies coming from the right-wing loonies such as Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly, and these trolls just eat it up like it’s fact! God, we’ve got a very uneducated 32% still clinging to their hated of American ideals…

By Goldie

January 25, 2007 03:02 PM | Link to this

Oh, and you trolls that keep posting your screwed logic about “Joseph Wilson’s entry in the Who’s Who giving his wife’s name and that means that he outed his own wife” — what has that got to do with revealing that she worked for the CIA? Where is Joe Wilson’s entry in “Who’s Who” saying that?

By Dusty

January 25, 2007 03:03 PM | Link to this

Anti Radical,

I would like to know where you got the idea that there are “many conservatives in academia”.

My daughter has almost completed her PhD in biochemistry and she doesn’t know any conservative professors where she studies. Many liberal commentaries in the newspaper are written by college professors as are letters to the editor. Liberal protest groups of students are usually led by liberal professors. TV political discussion shows often have professors to present the liberal point of view. There are several retired professors at my church and they are all liberal (and good friends). I just wondered where you got your view of the politics of academe.

By Buy Danish

January 25, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

{{There are many conservatives in academia; possibly more than there are liberals.}}

Anti-Rad,

Here we go again making up data for the make-believe world of liberals. It took me 2.5 seconds to find this:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said

Et cetera.

By Buy Danish

January 25, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this

Here is Ann Coulter’s satirical view on the lack of outrage over high tuition costs:

CNN reports that college tuition has risen an astonishing 40 percent since 2000. But the proposed solutions to the exact same problem — high prices for gasoline and tuition, respectively — were diametrically opposed.

The only solution to high gas prices considered on CNN was to pay oil company executives less, perhaps by order of the president. But somehow, no one ever suggested that the solution to the high price of college — far outpacing inflation — was to pay professors less. In that case, the solution is for the government to subsidize college professors’ salaries even more than it already does.

Based on CNN’s special coverage of high gas prices, the unfolding crisis in college tuition ought to be reported like this:

Coming up, soaring prices at the colleges. Who’s to blame? How can you keep your child in college and cash in your wallet? And Harvard outrage, big education makes big bucks, but we pay the price. So should President Bush limit prices? …

To our top story now. It seems like a summer ritual. Rising professors’ salaries mean rising tuition prices. But this year, sticker shock at the tuition window is fueling more concern than ever. And it has many people asking where is it going to end?

By Paul

January 25, 2007 03:19 PM | Link to this

Uh, Goldie, Libby’s charged with Obstruction, making false statements and perjury. Golly, maybe that’s why his attorneys didn’t seek dismissal of the charges? Because he’s not charge with giving away secret information? (Sometimes I have to diagram your questions and accusations. Ends up looking like a plate of spaghetti). His trial is warranted - the Special Prosecutor has charged him with criminal conduct. Just different acts from what you seem to think he performed.

Armitage is not charged with the charges you seem to think Libby guilty of.

One more time: doing something “wrong” is not the same as a criminal act.

Hey, did you so vociferously rail against Clinton supporters when he was impeached on perjury and obstruction of justice charges? Amazing how those two terms keep popping up, isn’t it?

Yes, he was not convicted. Please spare us the comparisons of relative seriousness of endangering lives with “wrong” sex acts. That’s not the issue - it’s just another diversion.

By rushncap

January 25, 2007 03:24 PM | Link to this

For once in a blue moon, Muffin is partially right. Rising tuition costs are a problem. Of course there is nothing the federal gov’t can do about this (these are STATE schools), but it’s amusing to see a neanderthal neo-con like Muffin trying to insert federal government into what is clearly a state issue. No wonder real conservatives want nothing at all to do with neocons.

Apparently the neo-cons have yet to figure out how to blame high tuition on either terrorists or liberals, but I wait with bated breath for them to put something together.

By Dusty

January 25, 2007 03:26 PM | Link to this

@@,

Of all the well balanced people on this blog, you are one of the best. Those who are depressed, inhibited, faithless are quick to run and to blame. They hate Bush, reflect badly on the country and claim support of the troops while kicking the morale out from under them. rushncap, Goldie, RE, Midori, Proud PInko Liberal etc., all sad cases when you consider they are spouting off right in free America with no appreciation whatsoever.

And hey, @@, you are moving on to a new post teaching children with disabilities, aren’t you? I bet you can do wonders with them. Keep up the good work and the optimism.

By @@

January 25, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this

Aaawwwhhh rushncap, there you go again trying to pull discourage me. A defeatist attitude doesn’t accomplish much in my profession.

I’m thinking of the little guy who couldn’t feed himself with a spoon. With my motivation, and his cooperation, he’s doing just that, feeding himself with a spoon. Everybody else had closed their eyes to the possibility.

Open wide rushncap…here comes the airplane. Zoooooommmmmmmmm!

By I thought we were supposed to care about each other?

January 25, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this

I am a first time reader and poster today. I laughed out loud at the total absurdity of Buy Danish until it made me so sick to my stomach to realize she was serious. How pathetic that people like you blog all day with nothing substantial to offer society.. What an uneducated, hate filled, generalizing- do nothing person. You are in these blogs everyday (except for the day the Dems took control) spewing lies with little attempt to inform or better yourself.
How sad I feel knowing that you do this. You need to face that your president is a total **ck-up!!! But as long as its not your kid dying or your income in jeopardy you’re A OK with it… I hope I don’t end up like you- ever. How does that happen?

By rushncap

January 25, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry, the difference between a sex act between 2 consenting adults and betraying an undercover agent is “diversion”? Kinda like the real issue with Al Capone was tax fraud and all those murders which he was never charged with are a “diversion”?

Thanks Paul.

By Buy Danish

January 25, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Liberals have lots of “ideas”, the problem is they never seem to progress past playing “Let’s pretend” like 5 year old children.

rushncap,

With that “no can do attitude” I have to wonder if you’re not still on the bunny slopes, instead of trying to tackle the big, dangerous, steep, icy mountain.

By @@

January 25, 2007 03:40 PM | Link to this

Dusty:

Well yes I am returning to work. Next week as a matter of fact. Still part time, but very excited. Two and a half hours of meeting the challenges of the developmentally delayed.

It will be easier than what can be accomplished with the radical leftists on this site.

It’s because those little darlin’s are motivated to succeed.

I don’t know what these leftists’ problems are.

By I thought we were supposed to care about each other?

January 25, 2007 03:40 PM | Link to this

Better a 5 year old than a bitter, old, b*tch.

By getalife

January 25, 2007 03:43 PM | Link to this

I thought we were supposed to care about each other?

“How does that happen?”.

Fox news, Ann Coulter, Rush Limp, Hannity, wingnut blogs, etc..

Extreme right wing bias, intellectual cowardice, delusional from reality and party before country. Mental illness.

And of course, just plain ignorant.

By Paul

January 25, 2007 03:43 PM | Link to this

rushncap

The topic raised was the charges pending against Libby - obstruction of justice, perjury, making false statements (not the classified topic). Pres Clinton was charged with two of the same charges. The acts leading to charges of lying to federal prosecutors is irrelevant. There is a great deal of difference between sex acts between consenting adults or (and this has not been proven - except by Armitage’s admission) naming a CIA employee. Trying to say one set of charges is valid and the other is bogus because the events leading up to them were different is a false justification.

Maybe, just maybe something like this occurs again (and it will) people will have the moral character to tell the truth (that was your laugh for the day).

You’re welcome.

By Goldie

January 25, 2007 03:44 PM | Link to this

{Armitage is not charged with the charges you seem to think Libby guilty of.}

And that’s because Armitage didn’t lie to the FBI and grand jury about what he did! Stop conflating the issues every chance you get, Paul!

By I thought we were supposed to care about each other?

January 25, 2007 03:46 PM | Link to this

Republicans are the ones with the No can do attitude. Were still waiting to see something done right. Better look in the mirror!!!

By Goldie

January 25, 2007 03:48 PM | Link to this

Uh, Paul— you never answered the question from a few days ago: why would your guy Scooter feel the need to lie about revealing a “desk jockey” at the CIA to news reporters, if there was no problem with doing that, according to you and some other trolls posting here day after day?

By John Henry Could Hammer

January 25, 2007 03:51 PM | Link to this

Why would they add more passengers, and not more crew? Analogy-wise.

By Truthman

January 25, 2007 03:51 PM | Link to this

OK, I’ll put it this way:

I try not to name call on this site (at least, not the bloggers on this site). Administration members and politicians of all stripes are fair game, though.

BTW, if all the Silver Star winners in Congress stood up Tuesday night during W’s SOTU speech, they would be:

John Murtha (D-PA) John Kerry (D-MA) James Webb (D-VA) John McCain (R-AZ)

Hmmm…do I see a pattern here?

By I thought we were supposed to care about each other?

January 25, 2007 03:53 PM | Link to this

You are correct getalife! Mental illness and ignorance of every person you mentioned!

By Paul

January 25, 2007 03:54 PM | Link to this

Goldie

Based upon your 3:44 I gather your position is Scooter (love that name) Libby is charged in connection with lying to Federal authorities, not with endangering national security in connection with knowingly revealing the name of a covert agent in violation of Federal statutes.

Well, I misunderstood your point, then. Glad we have that settled.

Still doesn’t answer the question about why Dick Armitage hasn’t been charged with revealing Plame’s identity, though, does it?

Off for a few, need to get some clotted cream and ingredients for a lemon meringue pie. Later -

By Dusty

January 25, 2007 03:56 PM | Link to this

Care About Each Other,

What a farce!! You care about someone else? Why don’t you show it?

Buy Danish shows every sign of a great education, high intelligence and strict compliance to facts in her commentaries. She presents her views with clarity and fairmess, something missed in many of the postings of others.

Perhaps if you try the same approach, you might be able to show us how much you “care”. Right now, I don’t see any signs of it.

By Paul

January 25, 2007 03:58 PM | Link to this

Goldie 3:48

That just popped up -

Can’t speak for dear old Scooter. From what I’ve read it seemed like a bit of Keystone Cops. Ever seen how a person (spouse, student, business associate) acts when they think they’ve done something wrong, but they’re not entirely sure, so they start prevaricating, shifting and running around like a chicken with it’s head cut off?

Read a long time ago “Do what is right and let the consequenses follow.” Not always the best advice for career advancement but one can sure sleep better at night.

By Buy Danish

January 25, 2007 04:04 PM | Link to this

BITWWSTCAEO (Sad Fairy princess)@ 3:28,

Name ONE “lie”.

You claim to be a first time reader and poster, yet you claim to know so very much about me?

I mentioned Iraq exactly once today, and it was to leave a link of Chuck Schumer’s own words about the conundrum of supporting the troops when you don’t support the mission.

What do nickjackers, rising tuition costs, the percentage of liberal professors, or the curriculum have to do with Bush?

I so look forward to your “educated” and “well-informed” response.

By RE

January 25, 2007 04:09 PM | Link to this

Paul, I do not know if you remember this, but when all this came out about the leak of plames name to the public, the whitehouse denied any invlovement at all. I remember Bush saying that if any memebers of his staff were invloved they would be fired. Then it changed to if any charges were filed they would be fired.

The white house’s stance on this has to deny any association with the leak. The lying was part of the coverup.

So here is a clear example of the whitehouse lying, then getting caught in the coverup. Do you think that this is something that should be allowed to go on without consequence?

By Buy Danish

January 25, 2007 04:15 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

I’m going to “show how much I care” and ignore your “neanderthal neo-con” comment.

Regarding your 3:24, when did I say anything about the government, either at the state or federal level, solving the problem of rising tuition costs?

I cited an article that pointed out that the Nancy Pelosi solution will not work and only make it worse, but that is a Democrat proposal that I oppose. I also cited a satirical piece by Ann Coulter. Did you misunderstand that it was satire?

The fact is that it is the Federal government that controls student loan rates, so your State school hypothesis is incorrect.

Try reading this again.

By rushncap

January 25, 2007 04:18 PM | Link to this

Paul - let’s not play this game. The charges of obstruction of justice and the like exist because it’s hard to nail someone for the real thing they did. So they resort to these charges. In cases like that the actual charge matters far less than the things the prosecuters could not charge a person with. Do you really think Al Capone would have wound up on Alcatraz for just tax evasion? Do you think he should have been treated the same way as some dude who had a few too many medical expenses and didn’t pay his taxes? The question here is never about perjury, it’s about what the person was hiding by way of his perjury. You know that as well as me.

By rushncap

January 25, 2007 04:20 PM | Link to this

Sigh, @@. I see you missed the point of my post altogether. I’m assuming that was not on purpose.

Sorry, I just don’t have the desire to re-explain it slowly. It’s one of those days.

By bon scott

January 25, 2007 04:21 PM | Link to this

BD (aka Bad Ideas) as much as I hate the idea of “liberals with no ideas” (false as it may be) I shake in terror at the idea of neocons with really bad ideas.

You know, the ones that bankrupt (morally and fiscally) the US, level countries in needless wars, killing thousands of Americans and who knows how many “foreign nationals” (pesky locals). And that’s just the tip of the icebeeg.

Now THAT’s scary!

Why do you hate America, to the point that you want it wiped off the face of the earth??

By Goldie

January 25, 2007 04:22 PM | Link to this

Today’s news from our friends in Afghanistan (“who?” You know, the first “regime change” idea coming from Dubya’s plan for “spreading democracy”):

Fueled by the Taliban, a powerful drug mafia and the need for a profitable crop that can overcome drought, opium production from poppies in Afghanistan last year rose 49 percent to 6,700 tons — enough to make about 670 tons of heroin. That’s more than 90 percent of the world’s supply and more than the world’s addicts consume in a year.

Dubya has the plan “forward” that keeps on going over the proverbial cliff… God help us all!

By rushncap

January 25, 2007 04:23 PM | Link to this

@@, good luck in your work. I’m sure you’ll be great at it. Judging by the unconditional love Muffin and RW show to you, you’ll have no problem communicating with your charges.

Muffin, darling, if you were ever on a big, icy mountain you must have fallen and hit your head. Now you need @@ to take care of you.

By Paul

January 25, 2007 04:24 PM | Link to this

RE

Nope. If Armitage hadn’t already left he should have been fired. Same for Libby. Rove too (He could’ve come back as a consultant, courtesy of the RNC).

By Mike

January 25, 2007 04:25 PM | Link to this

Mikey really caught me off guard today. A criticism of Bush? Wow!

By Midori

January 25, 2007 04:31 PM | Link to this

Rushncap:

{{{{Paul - let’s not play this game.}}}}}

Bingo!!!

I flat out refuse.

By I thought we were supposed to care about each other?

January 25, 2007 04:34 PM | Link to this

Dusty & Danish are in the same pysch ward!

By rushncap

January 25, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

Muffin, dear, the Ann Coulter piece of typing had this rhetorical question: “So should President Bush limit prices? …” Please read own links. Thanks.

By Dusty

January 25, 2007 04:40 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Would you please make a recording of the legalities of Scooter’s problems? It seems that such information must be repeated many times and then twisted to suit the twisted liberal who asked and wants to blame Bush.

And please explain to rushncap, the muffin muddler, the difference in perjury and what’s behind perjury in a court room. I think he is missing the boat (if we must refer in some way to today’s repetitive cartoon).

By RE

January 25, 2007 04:42 PM | Link to this

Here you go paul, from 9/29/03

the whitehouse clearly lying and misleading. Please take note of Mclellans use of the term classified information.

Q Scott, has anyone — has the President tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that’s assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing. Secondly, there — I’ve seen the anonymous media reports, and if I could find out who “anonymous” was, it would make my life a whole lot easier. But —

Q Does he think it didn’t come from here?

MR. McCLELLAN: But we’ve made it very clear that anyone — anyone — who has information relating to this should report that information to the Department of Justice.

Q Does he doubt it came from the White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?

Q Does he doubt?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there’s been no information that has been brought to our attention, beyond what we’ve seen in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement.

Q Will the President move aggressively to see if such a transgression has occurred in the White House? Will he ask top White House officials to sign statements saying that they did not give the information?

MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, if someone leaked classified information of this nature, the appropriate agency to look into it would be the Department of Justice. So the Department of Justice is the one that would look in matters like this.

By Goldie

January 25, 2007 04:43 PM | Link to this

Obviously Patrick Fitzgerald was tired of having sand “kicked in his face” by both Scooter and Rove — Rove somehow slithered out of any charges so far… but we’ll see what else the trial reveals. These Mafia types in the White House were so busy revealing classified information that it’s been hard to know who exactly said what first to whom (looks like Armitage was first, according to Bob Woodward, but they were all involved at about the same time in leaking the information they read in the White House memo marked “Secret” — and that memo has been proven as evidence!) They can’t now claim that they didn’t know it was considered “classified information” by the CIA.

You trolls are a lying bunch of blobs of protoplasm.

By Goldie

January 25, 2007 04:46 PM | Link to this

So, which one of you lying trolls can back up your claim that “Joe Wilson outed his own wife” because of his entry in “Who’s Who”?

Some links, please.

By rushncap

January 25, 2007 04:51 PM | Link to this

Muffin, I know full well the legal differences and similarities. I’m talking here about whether people should care, and why. So, for instance, I don’t care if someone lied to a prosecutor to cover up an affair (a non-criminal, if embarassing, problem). I do care if someone lied to a prosecutor about a crime, such as exposing the identity of a covert agent. All in all, this is pretty far down on the totem pole of this administration’s crimes, and normally I would not pay much heed to it, but if this is something that the administration can be nailed for, I’m for it. Just like with Capone: if you can’t get ‘em for murder, get ‘em for tax evasion. Better than nothing.

By RE

January 25, 2007 04:57 PM | Link to this

Q Do your words also speak for Vice President Cheney? And can you categorically say that he was not involved in this?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’ve made it clear that there’s been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the Vice President’s office, as well. When I’m talking about the White House, I’m talking about the Vice President’s office as well.

By Dusty

January 25, 2007 04:59 PM | Link to this

Hurry, Paul,

get those recordings done ASAP! Liberals are losing it!!

(The ultimate insult. You…you… PROTOPLASM!!)

By RE

January 25, 2007 05:00 PM | Link to this

Q I have one other follow up. Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson’s wife, but merely did not talk to anybody about it? Do you know whether for a fact he knew —

MR. McCLELLAN: I don’t know whether or not — I mean, I’m sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has.

Q When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, did you ever have this information, could you have talked to him?

MR. McCLELLAN: We’re going down a lot of different roads here. I’ve made it very clear that he was not involved, that there’s no truth to the suggestion that he was.

By Buy Danish

January 25, 2007 05:06 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

How many “Muffins” are there? I have not said a word about the Libby case.

You said:

{{By rushncap

January 25, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

Muffin, dear, the Ann Coulter piece of typing had this rhetorical question: “So should President Bush limit prices? …” Please read own links. Thanks.}}

Here’s a quick course for you, and I’m being “caring” and giving it to you for free:

Conservative Economics 101: The government should never interfere with the free market and control prices.

Let me know when you’ve absorbed that^^ and then I’ll introduce you to Satire 101.

When you’ve finished that course you’ll understand that that was the imaginary liberal CNN reporter talking, not the conservative.

By RealityCheck

January 25, 2007 05:09 PM | Link to this

Remember these hits from the past?

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” —President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” —President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” —Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” —Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by: — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by: — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief

By Paul

January 25, 2007 05:12 PM | Link to this

rushncap 4:18

I take a slightly different view. I do not think obstruction, perjury charges exist to nail someone for the things they did. I tend to accept innocent until proven guilty. They exist to ensure the integrity of the criminal justice system. Citizens have a duty, government officials more so, to make sure the system “works.”

Al Capone is not a parallel example. Libby was a government employee with no criminal record. Capone was a Mafioso with a history of bribery, murder and such of witnesses (please, anyone, this does not conflict with paragraph one). Capone’s conviction was on valid charges - could’ve prosecuted anyone on those and won. But I will agree, he was a target.

As, it can be argued, were Bush Administration officials. As was Pres Clinton. No solid knowledge, but my impression is prosecutors make their reputations and promotions for having something to show - a conviction - for all their investigative efforts. Partnerships in prestigious firms await. Money and power, RE, money and power.

Not to be disingenuous, but I’m not convinced “Scooter” had a real good grasp of what he was involved in.

Midori 4:31

You’re right. It’s not a game. There should be more to basing one’s opinion on than “Democrats good, Republicans bad. Bush Bad, Attack Anyone Who Says Anything in the Least Bit Positive.”

Dusty 4:40

Thanks for the laugh. I think you answered it pretty well.

Goldie 4:43

Again, thanks for the illustration of an ideologue. I’d never met one before.

By RealityCheck

January 25, 2007 05:13 PM | Link to this

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.” — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and

By RealityCheck

January 25, 2007 05:17 PM | Link to this

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

By RE

January 25, 2007 05:17 PM | Link to this

Paul, just to sum up, is there any doubt in your mind that the whitehouse tried to put out the assumption that it was not invloved in the plame leak in any way when in fact it was?

By rushncap

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

Paul - I agree. The statutes cited were not created to “nail” people. But they are frequently used that way. And frequently to get convictions on people where the prosecutors are pretty sure they did a lot wrong, but can’t put together a powerful enough case to get a conviction.

Muffin, I know that conservatives think that the less government does, the better. Which is why even real conservatives want nothing to do with Bush and the Merry Band of NeoCons. Bush has increased the role, power, scope and price of government to a point where it’s never been greater. And you all sang and danced.

By RE

January 25, 2007 05:23 PM | Link to this

Thanks Reality check, I have not seen those quotes rolled out in weeks. They have a little dust on them. Also, they have no relevence to what we were talking about

By Buy Danish

January 25, 2007 05:24 PM | Link to this

I thought We Cared about eachother (waaaah!),

I hope you come here and visit us every day! You perfectly illustrate that liberals are pathological liars and dumb as rocks:

Statement one:

{{I am a first time reader and poster today.}}

Statement two:

{{You are in these blogs everyday (except for the day the Dems took control}}

Welcome aboard! I look forward to more of the same.

By @@

January 25, 2007 05:29 PM | Link to this

rushncap:

Keeping in mind that I’m always smiling, I have this point to make about the point you said you made, but I missed….NOT.

Your point:

“I believe things will be good, but to ensure that they will be good there are certain things we must do.”

Key words in your statement - “things we must do”.

My point:

“With my motivation, and his cooperation, he’s doing just that, feeding himself with a spoon.”

Key words in my statement -“motivation, cooperation, and doing”.

I get the feeling you don’t like “steamed squash”, if I delivered it with a “choo choo” would you like it better?

When you’re finished “choo chooing” could you tell me what you and the Democrats will be “doing or “chooing” over about Iraq?

I can see you’re having “one of those days”.

Like I tell the kids. “Get over it! It’s gonna be difficult for awhile, but you have no choice but to succeed, otherwise you will have to accept failure, and live your life as such.”

By rushncap

January 25, 2007 05:31 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Reality Check. Except the Democrats didn’t unilaterally drag the country into this mess, violating national and international laws in the process.

It’s the difference between 2 people: first one saying “Man, I really hate guy X”, second one saying “Man, I really hate guy X, so I’m gonna go blow his brains out”, and then doing it. I doubt that at the murder trial the defense lawyer will get away with saying “Well, the first guy is on record as saying he hates guy X too, so really he’s just as guilty of the murder.”

By Buy Danish

January 25, 2007 05:44 PM | Link to this

rushncap you fool,

This is not a game of liar’s poker. You have intentionally misrepresented what I said and what the links said, and when I call you on it you try to change the subject in that blatantly dishonest way you habitually fall back on when you’re losing.

Maybe the fairy princess and bon scott will fall for your deception, but I’m calling your hand right now.

As a poker player, you should know when to hold ‘em and know when to fold ‘em.

By rushncap

January 25, 2007 05:51 PM | Link to this

OK, @@. What am I doing about Iraq? Well, for one, we’re looking to explore ALL options, not deciding what is the most politically expedient thing, and then doing it, no matter how many die. Democrats are trying to at least figure out what strategy to try to get us out. Bush is not interested in any of it. Is that clear? Bush has chosen failure, because it’s easier, and it’s easier to explain to people like Muffin: “Don’t worry, trust me, I know what I’m doing.” Bush has failed in EVERY aspect of this misadventure. I can’t find a single thing he did right. Maybe you can, good luck there. He took a bad situation and made it horrible. Atrocious. What exactly makes you want to trust him any more? Is it just simpler than thinking?

I honestly don’t know if I have a good solution. But I do know that the guy who got us to a point where there are no good solutions should at the very least be fired, and, if there is justice in this world, thrown in jail. What you’re basically doing is finding a dead body, then, when I demand accountability for the murder, turning to me and angrily accosting me with “Well, I don’t see YOU coming up with a plan to bring this man back to life.” There is no way to bring him back to life, and there may not be a way to fix Iraq without significantly more bloodshed and maybe even an all-out civil war. So I’m a horrible person if I demand accountability for this crime?

By @@

January 25, 2007 05:53 PM | Link to this

Oh crap! Is today’s topic the Libby trial again? Ambitious lawyers?

It may end up that Fitzgerald looks like “MyThong” at Duke University.

How embarrassing.

By rushncap

January 25, 2007 05:54 PM | Link to this

Uh huh. Whatever you say, Muffin.

By LuckoDull

January 25, 2007 05:56 PM | Link to this

By Goldie January 25, 2007 02:55 PM It’s interesting that the Neo-Con trolls here on the blog keep insisting that Scooter and Cheney did NOTHING wrong by giving away secret information about the CIA to news reporters

One could say that Goldilocks thinks leaking Plame’s name is a serious deal and the real leaker should face some harsh penalties, right?

Not so fast-

By Goldie January 25, 2007 03:44 PM And that’s because Armitage didn’t lie to the FBI and grand jury about what he did! Stop conflating the issues every chance you get, Paul!

I mean it’s one thing to be a stupid slobbering partisan hack, but maybe we should study the things we say?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By getalife

January 25, 2007 06:04 PM | Link to this

“Libby turns on Cheney:

Hotter than Miss USA kissing Miss Teen USA

White House officials tried to sacrifice Libby to protect Karl Rove from Plame blame during a political storm over Bush’s bloody quagmire, Libby’s lawyer said Tuesday.

After Libby complained “they want me to be the sacrificial lamb,” Cheney personally intervened to get Scottie the Underbear to publicly clear Libby in the leak, defense attorney Theodore Wells said in his opening statement at Libby’s perjury trial.

Prosecutor Patrick Fitzmasdontbelate told the jury Libby lied to the FBI and a grand jury about his contacts with reporters concerning Plame to save his job and avoid political embarrassment. In a rare move, Fitzgerald played four short tape recordings of Libby’s statements to the grand jury that he said were lies.

Remember how they got Nixon? First they got rid of Agnew and then they closed in on Mr. Guilty.”

Bartcop has been right about everything.

“Didn’t Dick Cheney tell us he knew where Saddam’s WMDs were?” — Howard Wolfson

By Andy

January 25, 2007 06:07 PM | Link to this

You really got ol’ mike that time, Luckoblow, with the z’s, I mean, everytime you type z’s you get more and more accomplished in your biting and caustic skill at criticism. There are only a handful of bloggers in the world who can bash at your level, sir, and mike luckovich is lucky he has a career left after your last post.

You reign supreme, and all hail luckoblow.

By LuckoDull

January 25, 2007 06:08 PM | Link to this

By rushncap January 25, 2007 05:31 PM It’s the difference between 2 people: first one saying “Man, I really hate guy X”, second one saying “Man, I really hate guy X, so I’m gonna go blow his brains out”, and then doing it.

That’s a real nice summary, rushncap, really.

You mind if I apply it to Bill Clinton, Al Qaeda and the World Trade Center?

And how much you want to bet Saddam won’t be melting Manhattan?

Stick to your lab studies, junior.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By getalife

January 25, 2007 06:12 PM | Link to this

CIA Staffer Says He Warned Cheney, Libby of Leak’s Danger

Idiot.

By @@

January 25, 2007 06:17 PM | Link to this

rushncap:

I sense your frustration and can empathize.

I, too am tired of waiting on the Democrats to tell us what they want to do about Iraq.

“Chooing and spitting” is unacceptable behavior.

By Luckoblow

January 25, 2007 06:18 PM | Link to this

Y-y-yeah, Rushncap, stick to your l-l-lab studies, j-j-junior!

By Buy Danish

January 25, 2007 06:19 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Gen Petreaus was unanimously approved today.

Please explain how you can approve someone unanimously on the one hand, and issue a “non-binding resolution” opposing Petreaus’ planned strategy in Iraq (which was the result of “exploring all options”).

Fold ‘em rushncap.

By Andy

January 25, 2007 06:23 PM | Link to this

You really got ol’ Bush that time, Luckovich, with the sinking ship, I mean, everytime you draw the sinking ship, which you have hundreds and hundreds of times already, you get more and more accomplished in your biting and caustic skill at criticism. There are only a handful of cartoon boy’s in the world who can bash at your level, sir, and mike Bush is lucky he has a career left after your last cartoonie.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Buy Danish

January 25, 2007 06:47 PM | Link to this

rushncap speaks:

{{{I honestly don’t know if I have a good solution. But I do know that the guy who got us to a point where there are no good solutions should at the very least be fired, and, if there is justice in this world, THROWN IN JAIL.}}

What’s the crime here, Dostoyevsky? This is not the Soviet Union, as much as you wish to import its unlovely methods, along with the socialism and atheism you hold so dear.

By rushncap

January 25, 2007 06:52 PM | Link to this

It’s called lying to Congress, Muffin. Look it up. It’s found under “high crimes and misdemeanors.” If you lie to get a country into a war, that’s a criminal offense. Or you don’t think lives of 3,000+ Americans are worth anything?

By Midori

January 25, 2007 07:02 PM | Link to this

now, now, Rushncap — Lying to congress only matters when it’s a blow job involved.

By RW-(the original)

January 25, 2007 07:14 PM | Link to this

I don’t know why I bothered to read the blog when I got in. Same old crap from the libs.

rushncap still thinks being wrong about some small part of something makes you a criminal. LuckoDull really took you out rusncap. All the world is safe from the future plans of Saddam. You may have been woozy from everyone else kicking you all the blog to have noticed. Then again you could be just like the All in the Family character, Meathead.

Blackadder who thinks that name calling is just too juvenile reveals himself as PPL, who did little more than name call if I recall correctly.

What was that Andy used to say? Oh yea, frisk the liberal first, it saves time.

Midori thinks a federal grand jury is the Congress.

And some fool, sorry I don’t have time to go back and get the name, thinks Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat.

By LuckoDull

January 25, 2007 07:15 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON — The Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee dismissed President Bush’s plans to increase troops strength in Iraq on Wednesday as “not in the national interest,” an unusual wartime repudiation of the commander in chief. The vote on the nonbinding measure was 12-9 and largely along party lines.

The congressional equivalent of wetting your pants.

Gosh, what awesome, preemptive power you pinkos have brought to bear, why, it sends chills up one’s spine to see such authority.

Now go scurry back into your holes.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.