Mike Luckovich

By LuckoDull

February 13, 2007 07:52 AM | Link to this

How do you spell “iron” in Iranian?

Pentagon sources have been saying for several years that Iranian-style munitions have been appearing in Iraq, and arms smugglers have been caught coming across the Iranian border. What’s new is that the Iranian-marked weapons have actually been put on display and an estimate of their toll made public: more than 170 Americans killed in action and more than 600 wounded.

Notice how it says the “Pentagon” and not the “State Department,” so we know that the people with their lives on the line are the ones gathering evidence; not the ones with the mindless political agenda like the CIA.

“Iran is a significant contributor to attacks on coalition forces, and also supports violence against the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi people,” said a Defense official in Baghdad.

Iran has very little to lose and alot to gain by fighting a proxy war against America, by slaughtering innocent civilians and blowing up American soldiers using suicidal fanatics; something that should concern everyone except of course, the mindless political partisan hacks like cartoon boy.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Eric

February 13, 2007 08:10 AM | Link to this

If American Soldiers weren’t an occupying force in a country where they have no business being, Iran wouldn’t have the opportunity to blow them up, you moron.

By The Peoples for a Nuked' Amerika' Century~!

February 13, 2007 08:17 AM | Link to this

-=-

AndyDull —

Like DUH!

Of course Iran is fomenting trouble in Iraq, they always have! Even in Saddam’s days the Iranians assisted their fellow Shiites in Iraq. Now they are the leaders of Iraq!

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8172

But thats Ok we will send our new anti-terrorist weapon to take em out! Arm the Dolphins!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17122942/

Thomas/PNAC

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 13, 2007 08:20 AM | Link to this

Mike has apparently seen the Power Point Presentation too.

You must all see it and make up your own mind.

To those of us who have read alot of the PNAC stuff, this is no surprise.

Did I also hear that a third battle group is steaming into the area?

We must stand against an American strike into Iran.

Washington Office Fax Numbers:

Chambliss 202 224 0103

Isakson 202 228 3521

Linder 202 225 4690

Use the power!

Ok, wingnuts, go nuts.

By N-GA

February 13, 2007 08:21 AM | Link to this

In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan (purportedly at the behest of the Afghan government). Jimmy Carter authorized CIA activity in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, providing military aid (primarily through Pakistan). Almost 10 years later the Soviets left Afghanistan and the Taliban took over. Much of the success against the Soviets was the use of American shoulder-fired SAM missiles against Soviet helicopters.

All during this time the US denied it was providing arms to fight the Soviets (sound familiar). The UN General Assembly had routinely condemned the Soviet invasion, but the Security council could not because the Soviets had veto power.

The US invaded Iraq and someone (?) is providing the insurgents with weapons. Perhaps Iran….perhaps Russia.

By N-GA

February 13, 2007 08:25 AM | Link to this

Now the Bush administration wants the world to believe that Iran is providing weapons to Iraqi insurgents to use in fighting against American soldiers.

Of course these are the same politicians that wanted the world to believe their “proof” that Iraq possessed WMD’s. Remember those pictures of the portable labs?

It may well be true that Iran is behind some weapons used by Iraqi insurgents, but this administration has squandered its integrity with earlier lies.

France & Germany weren’t fooled. They provide troops in Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

By Scooter

February 13, 2007 08:42 AM | Link to this

It is a great time to be a terrorist in the world. Here in America there is a group, the most intelligent group of course, that seemingly has no problem with countries ignoring and blatantly disregarding UN Resolutions. No resolution needs to be honored so long as Israel and the US are in violation of any, is that right? Not only that, but if an honorable nation seeks to actually accomplish what the UN rarely, if ever does, our intelligent leaders (media) will seek to stop that as well. Khoum Bah Yah… khoum bah yah… ALLAH ACHBAR, bang!

To these intelligent “journalists” the best thing to do is let the terrorists choose the battle fields, whack those moles and let the UN continue starving innocent people while being pushed around by tin pot rulers. OBL quoted both the UN resolutions affect of starving Iraqi children and our unwillingness to fight in Somalia, as justifications for 9/11. But, our intelligent sector of society feels we should have left the sanctions in place, but; since we are in Iraq we should now retreat from there.

Are we now to believe Saddam was a cooperative participant in disclosing the whereabouts of his WMD’s and the UN was handling the situation just fine? I know, we shouldn’t have done anything to Saddam because we didn’t do something to all the other dictators of the world.

Hey, has hezbolah given back those Israeli soldiers they kidnapped a year ago? You know, the kidnapping that instigated Israel’s attack on Lebanon?

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 08:50 AM | Link to this

The illiterate ML pinning an imaginary spelling error on the Bush Administration? Now that’s funny.

Bush warned over claims that Iran ‘stirring up’ Iraq violence

OOOOOOOH. He’s been warned by Chris Dodd!

SENIOR Democrats in the US have urged the Bush administration to be cautious about accusing Iran of fomenting violence in Iraq…The calls were made after US officials in Iraq said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Shia militias who attacked its military.

Democrat Senator Chris Dodd said the Bush administration had tried to falsify evidence before. “I’m looking at this report with a degree of scepticism,” he said. “I don’t doubt that Iran has been involved to some degree, but I’m getting uneasy that they’re trying to set a premise for some future, broader military action in Iran.”

I guess he thinks they were made on a Hollywood set? Or he kinda sorta believes the highest levels of the Iranian Government is responsible, but doesn’t want to be put in the position of having to do something about it when it’s so much easier just to say, “Bush sucks!”?

By the way, all ye congenital doomsayers - The Deficit is down 57%. You probably heard it here first, since no good news is good news for the Dems and their allies in the MSM.

By N-GA

February 13, 2007 08:59 AM | Link to this

Blivet,

Don’t bother me with Bush’s deficit. Let us know when the NATIONAL DEBT is down 57%.

By Question Everything

February 13, 2007 09:05 AM | Link to this

Incredible, isn’t it? Rather than cut the actual deficit in half, Bush will tackle an imaginary deficit—a projected deficit, one that never existed, one he pulled straight outta his keister. We truly do live in fictitious times—when a sitting president can even dream of making such an absurd presentation. But don’t worry! The press corps has glugged down gallons of budget cant from the Bush Admin over the years. Result? You live at a time when a White House has made a clear decision—that there is nothing so phony and fake that the press will refuse to accept it.

By The Peoples for a Nuked' Amerika' Century~!

February 13, 2007 09:06 AM | Link to this

-=-

So Folks - It seems that Scooter is just fine and dandy with Empire Building.

What Scooter? No Concerns?

No concerns about spreading our military forces too thin around the world?

No concerns about imperial globalism and expansionism?

No concerns about World Domination and losing our allies?

And obviously no worrys about any other superpower countries watching our every move as we waste resources in the sandpits of the middle east.

Obviously Strategy is not one of your strongpoints. But Hey I’m with you Scooter (and other PNAC NeoCons)! Lets take over the world and control it with the Iron Fist of democracy! We will crush them all under our heels!

Yep - Lets light that candle and start a full “Mideast War” Scooter! You go first!

Surely the afterglow of what would be left of the former “United States of America” would be beautiful to behold at night!

Pax Americana? or Global Domination? Your Choice Scooter! Choose!

Thomas/PNAC

(Absolute power corrupts absolutly!)

By The Peoples for a Nuked' Amerika' Century~!

February 13, 2007 09:09 AM | Link to this

-=-

(High Fives N-GA)

Yes indeed! I am so tired of Bush & Co mortaging our country to China!

Thomas/PNAC

-=-

By Paul

February 13, 2007 09:10 AM | Link to this

G’morning - N-GA

Let me get this out of the way - clear up the mystery - as to why, as you were relaxing last night - you heard the faint cry of “N-GA - thbpppt!!!”

1998 Amarone. And you didn’t even share. To use one of getalife’s more illustrative phrases - “Geez.”

Having said that, Russia is now the world’s largest seller of arms abroad. All those who like to go on about US formenting war for profit (Putin?) should think about that. Russia sells itself (contracts, supplies, expertise) to Iran for development of nukes, then sells Iran one of the world’s premier air defense missile systems. Again, it gets back to money and power.

Yes - we provided training supplies to the muhajeen in Afghanistan - that was rather a proxy setting for the US and USSR to have at it - and was one element in bankrupting the Soviet Union - and now Iran assisting Iraq - well, one war was easily contained, this one may develop.

I suppose a lot of folks think the insurgents in Iran are using just leftover weapons from Saddam - that line of thought cancels any consideration of larger issues. Some of the “intel” - while there is not a definite bill of sale (even that wouldn’t be enough for some) - shows technology that isn’t possible in a back room forge (IEDs with shaped charges, molten copper projectiles, etc.). Here’s a nice story to illustrate that by way of sniper rifles from Austria (amazing how much good information comes from British media):

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JPKY4R41A1KIBQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 09:13 AM | Link to this

Oh that dastardly Chris Dodd! How dare he say “Bush has lied before, and often, maybe this time we should bother checking what he says for ourselves.” How preposterous!

By N-GA

February 13, 2007 09:14 AM | Link to this

Hey Blivet! What about this news item?:

“The U.S. trade deficit set a fifth consecutive annual record in 2006, reflecting a huge jump in America’s foreign oil bill and an all-time high for the trade gap with China.”

By regulator

February 13, 2007 09:15 AM | Link to this

Does Iron ryhme with moron? Its Hezbollah, you iron headed moron.

By Paul

February 13, 2007 09:19 AM | Link to this

Question Everything 9:05

An imaginary budget pulled out of his keister? Have you ever had any experience with federal government budgeting? Outyear projections? Congressional budget vs President’s Budget? The role of future program plans and costs? If you have, you know that your remarks are way off.

Just look at all the angst that occurs when the Pres attempts to limit future growth - in other words, reduce the amount of funds available, planned for a future date outside this year’s or next year’s appropriations. Very little reduction occurs in the future or next-year budget.

By DebbieDoRight

February 13, 2007 09:22 AM | Link to this

It may well be true that Iran is behind some weapons used by Iraqi insurgents, but this administration has squandered its integrity with earlier lies

But you can never tell the Republicans that!! Bush is KING, darn near a GOD in their eyes!! And the band played on while the USS United States sanked.

By Question Everything

February 13, 2007 09:25 AM | Link to this

Including Paul.

By Brian Curtis

February 13, 2007 09:26 AM | Link to this

I wonder if the press will do their duty and pay attention on THIS fishing expedition for excuses to go to war?

Place your bets, folks… will they roll over and play dead a second time? Is anyone still hoping there’s a “liberal media” out to get the Prez?

By Paul

February 13, 2007 09:28 AM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight

Are you SURE you’re the youngish military wife of a second-enlistment enlisted living on-post at a DoD school? Spouse group meetings or Fridays at the Enlisted Club must be a riot.

By Clem

February 13, 2007 09:29 AM | Link to this

Let’s see a show of hands in support of rushncap’s offer to go to Iraq and check on the claim of Iran sending in weapons. I’ll even drive the boy to the recruiting office or if he prefers to go the Hanoi Jane route I’ll drive his sorry butt to the airport.

By Paul

February 13, 2007 09:34 AM | Link to this

Question Everything -

Excellent! I know it seems silly - but that’s how they do things. People live and die by program projections, 1,2,3 - 5 years out. Congressmen have staffers who, for their entire career, may oversee one program or group of related programs. They may know more about the program than the person in the federal agency charged with running it. So a “cut” three years out can have a tremendous impact on the program, the beneficiaries of the program, and the careers of those overseeing the program.

It’s not exactly the same as a college grad saying “I just got hired. I make $35k a year. In five years I expect to make $85k a year.” Five years go by. He’s making $45k a year. He says, “Damn! I just took a $40k pay cut!”

By cindy

February 13, 2007 09:39 AM | Link to this

Paul, I don’t understand your budget comment to the deficit posting. The last few and next few budgets have been all Bush. The fact that he can’t plan for spending any better than he can plan for war is just another leadership failure.

By Question Everything

February 13, 2007 09:41 AM | Link to this

Honey, I need 36 jillion to get the job done.

Ok, sweetie, whatever. But now we are 36 jillion in deficit.

Weeks later….

Honey, I artificially inflated that 36 jillion number so I could come back and say I only need 10 jillion and look like a hero to stupid people.

Sweetie, you are just the greatest.

HEADLINE: Deficit Reduced by the Greatest

By Craig

February 13, 2007 09:41 AM | Link to this

In a sense “Question Everything” is right about the future budget deficit being imaginary. The same exact thing could be said for the imaginary future surpluses during the Clinton administration. With Clinton it the future surplus relied on him not getting us into a recession, but he failed miserably in that. With Bush the deficit relies on him keeping the economy stagnant, but he messed up and got the economy roaring so his deficit is rapidly disappearing.

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 09:45 AM | Link to this

Just a quick comparison:

Bush’s great accomplishment — reducing our deficit (if it is, in fact, true, which is not a guarantee)

Clinton’s great accomplishment — giving us a surplus.

That’s my $.02

By Paul

February 13, 2007 09:48 AM | Link to this

Cindy - the future year budgets are not set in stone. They are regularly revised - they can be thought of as planning tools. Economic conditions (hence projections on available revenues) change. Priorities change. Rumsfeld cancelled a major weapons program (Challenger - had been run by one of those critical generals) - because the Cold War is over. Suddenly, outyear, hundreds of millions of dollars shifted. Worrying about leadership failures should happen if these budgets went through year by year with no changes, regardless of circumstances.

And they’re put together by lifetime bureaucrats, overseen by “temps” - elected and appointed officials - I don’t care for much of what’s in the budget(s), either. Unfortunately, not many would care for my ideas on how to reallocate, cut or expand, either.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 09:53 AM | Link to this

China, Shmina.

Here’s a pie chart of who owns the National Debt.

Here’s an explanation of “Why Debt Doomsday is a Myth”

Did I mention that I love this guy? (Not you Goat).

I’m guessing that N-GA wants to tax our way out of this, and he must believe that we were a more properous nation between 1832 and 1856 when we had no national debt, or that Botswana’s economy has us beat

rushncap,

Dodd is saying that he is not convinced these weapons are from Iran. That’s the point munchkin.

You’ll have to explain how this can be - Bush lied while Kerry cried? Bush lied while Clinton tried? Bush lied while Jay walked? Bush lied while Albright squawked?

If you’re a democrat and you say Saddam has WMDs and is seeking nuclear weapons you’re a truth teller, but when Bush says exactly the same thing you’re a liar.

It takes a liar like you rushncap to make that Orwellian disinformation work for you. And the help of your Useful Idiot accomplices in the MSM of course.

By DebbieDoRight

February 13, 2007 09:54 AM | Link to this

{{An imaginary budget pulled out of his keister? Have you ever had any experience with federal government budgeting? Outyear projections? Congressional budget vs President’s Budget? The role of future program plans and costs?}}

You know CLINTON managed to balance the budget and cut the deficit, I wonder how he did it? Hmmmmm…… oh yeah that’s right Clinton was SMART!!

By mountain man

February 13, 2007 09:55 AM | Link to this

Old Looney Dull and his friends are probably Republican employees who get up early in the morning to spread their rants.

Bush is up to his old tricks, trying to instigate another scheme to get the focus off Iraq. The man’s a fool. But we’re even bigger fools if we let him get away with it.

Bush claims to be a born agin’ Christian. I’d say he’s more like the antichrist.

By Paul

February 13, 2007 09:55 AM | Link to this

Cindy - my 9:48 - that was “Crusader” not “Challenger.” Great name for a weapon that coulda gone to the Middle East, isn’t it?

By Question Everything

February 13, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

Including Craig.

The economy is roaring. For me, you bet. I’m taking a great vacation this year.

Now as for the 35 million plus Americans living in poverty it’s a different story.

Even the President in his state of the Union mentioned the growing desparity of rich and poor in the country.

By DebbieDoRight

February 13, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

{{DebbieDoRight — Are you SURE you’re the youngish military wife of a second-enlistment enlisted living on-post at a DoD school? Spouse group meetings or Fridays at the Enlisted Club must be a riot.}}

I don’t live on a military base, my husband does and he’s on his THIRD enlistment. Before we married he promised he was getting out of the military, guess he lied.

When I visit my husband on base, (he’s in school/training), you’d be surprised at how MANY wives/husbands of servicemen/women detest this war. Heck you’d be surprised at how many SERVICEMEN/WOMEN detest it. Unfortunately they can’t say anything, the DOD is the hand that feeds them, (housing, medical/dental, etc). Debbie on the other hand, feeds herself so I can say what I want. Oh the joy!!!

By @@

February 13, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

Paul:

If you’ve never read Mark Steyn, he’s a guy who has had his been watching the Iranian game for some time.

For those here, who don’t want to take the time to read his lengthy article now, I suggest you bookmark it for later consumption. Just a little summary:

“I strongly urge that in breaking down the walls of Marxist fantasies you do not fall into the prison of the West and the Great Satan,” Ayatollah Khomeini wrote to Moscow. “I openly announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the greatest and most powerful base of the Islamic world, can easily help fill up the ideological vacuum of your system.”

A big chunk of Western civilization, consciously or otherwise, has given the impression that it’s dying to surrender to somebody, anybody. Reasonably enough, Islam figures: Hey, why not us? If you add to the advantages of will and manpower a nuclear capability, the odds shift dramatically.

A quarter-century ago, there was a minor British pop hit called “Ayatollah, Don’t Khomeini Closer.” If you’re a U.S. diplomat or a British novelist, a Croat Christian or an Argentine Jew, he’s already come way too close. How much closer do you want him to get?

By Question Everything

February 13, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

Saw a guy talk about the missing 8.8 billion in iraq…..

says it was a “third world” accounting issue. the third world folks know exactly how many goats they need to keep their kids in milk, and how much it will take to feed those goats. simple accurate arithmitic.

pauls 9:48 is what must be called a description of the new “first world” accounting. like they used at enron and tyco.

By @@

February 13, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish:

I didn’t know you read “The Skeptical Optimist”. I check in on him often. He’s in my favorites.

He has a special way of outting the naysayers. He seems to have fun doing it too.

By Paul

February 13, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

Darn, DebbieDoRight - under Pres Clinton federal spending declined $18 per year per person. Under Pres Bush, that horrendous decline was reversed and spending per person per year has increased. Conservatives should love Pres Clinton (federal outlays per person decreased - ) while Liberals should love Pres Bush (federal spending is up, up, up!).

By Craig

February 13, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this

Danish-rushncap as as munchkin is perfect. I can just see that loud mouthed little punk dressed in his tights and singing about his lordship over the Lollipop Guild. That visual will make patrol alot more fun this morning.

By @@

February 13, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

Paul:

Please take out the “had his” in my first sentence.

I’m rushing this morning. While the leftists were tossing and turning, I slept way too deeply and didn’t get up until after 9:00, and after watching 24 no less.

By Don't look now...

February 13, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

….but adder has changed names again.

By Paul

February 13, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

@@ - no prob - I try to concentrate on the message - not the typos or the extra words that sometimes find their way in - I’m about to log off for a while - gotta get a couple project out. Good day to you -

24 was great! It’ll be interesting to see how Jack’s dad gets his just reward.

By Lord Help Us

February 13, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

Paul,

Moderates/Independents loved President Clinton and abhor President Bush for a lot of reasons in addition to the fiscal competence of one vs. the fiscal incompetence of the other.

Your point reminds me that we should not look at issues from the extreme positions of the right or the left.

The extreme right and left will always view thru the partisan prism.

The independent/moderates in this country are our salvation.

By DebbieDoRight

February 13, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

{{Conservatives should love Pres Clinton (federal outlays per person decreased - ) while Liberals should love Pres Bush (federal spending is up, up, up!)}}

Federal Spending is up because we are entrenched in two wars on two fronts. The budget for each war is what’s driving Federal spending. On the other hand, spending for healthcare, (PeachCare), is being DENIED by Bush. How can you love a man like that? Bombs YES — Immunizations — NO

By The Peoples for a Nuked' Amerika' Century~!

February 13, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

-=-

Yes 24 is great

It will also be great to see how the NeoCons (that plan on taking out the liberal President) get their just desserts too!

Thomas/PNAC

-=-

By Paul

February 13, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

LHU

Yes! Now watch how candidates struggle to position themselves for those voters while not taking those positions to appeal to the power brokers! Now I’m gone ‘till this evening. Have a good one -

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

Craig,

UR welcome!

Paul,

I think it is somewhat specious to compare Clinton deficits and budgets to Bush as if they begin from a level playing ground.

One: It was the Republican Congress and the Contract with American that had a balanced budget as their priority. Clinton gets the credit for actions they initiated.

Two: Clinton cut defense spending which we are now in the process of rebuilding, and other than our intervention in the civil war in Kosovo (remember the Peace Dividend?) we did not have huge outlays in those pre 9/11 days.

I want to see pork eliminated and am fed up with the bridges to nowhere, but it is a joke to believe that the Dems will do any better than the Republicans.

If they win the White House in 2008 and push through stifling tax increases and a host of new and expanded social programs we’re really doomed, and that’s not global warming hyperbole.

Which brings me to Barak Obama who you claim has some support from conservatives. Not anyone I know, that’s for darn sure, unless you’re referring to “social conservatives” who might fall for his Left wing fairy tales just as they have defunded Israel and are buying into global warming nonsense.

Here’s some news on Barry as a potential Commander in Chief.

By Cindy

February 13, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Debbie, You are trying to burst that neo-con bs bubble about everyone connected to the military supports the war in Iraq…and if you don’t support the war you are against the troops. There are a lot of us from the retiree family who are with you. God bless our troops.

By Lord Help Us

February 13, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Yes Paul, the nomination kabuki dance is hard to watch. They will all veer left/right as needed to enlist enough of the fringe to secure the nomination then veer to the middle knowing that the sheep will follow.

Even Giuliani is trying to soften his pro-choice, pro-gun control record so that he can pull some of the nutjobs in before he moves back to the center if he gets the nod.

Hilary is confident enough in getting the Dem nomination that she is not veering too far left (yet).

Almost any viable candidate on the Dem side looks good (Clinton, Richardson, Biden, Obama) compared with the travesty we currently have in the West Wing.

And, a Giuliani ticket on the Rep side would result in a win-win for mainstream Americans.

By Grammy Talk

February 13, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

If the Dixie Chicks dont (have a) fit, then W musta’ quit.

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

By Don’t look now…

February 13, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

….but adder has changed names again.

Nope. Sorry to disappoint you. Looks like you’re the one with the name change. I don’t think I’ve ever seen “Don’t look now…” on here before.

Hypocrite

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight - I like 24 too! I haven’t missed an episode since the first one.

I, too, am looking forward to seeing the conspiracy to get rid of President Palmer blow up in their faces.

By IN THE NEWS

February 13, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

Federal prosecutors in San Diego are expected today to announce indictments in a case that involves the former No. 3 official at the CIA, Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, officials tell ABC News.

Foggo, who served as the CIA’s executive director, was accused last year by fellow CIA employees of steering contracts for the CIA station in Iraq to longtime friend Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor whose activities also led to the indictment of former Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham.

Officials said today’s expected indictments will also include Wilkes.

By Ummm DebbieDoRight?

February 13, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Is Thomas/PNAC also DDR & Blackadder?

DDR didn’t mention 24, but Thomas/PNAC has been outed for talking to himself.

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

Ummm DebbieDoRight?,

If this is all you have to worry about you have WAY too much time on your hands, name changer.

I thought changing names was supposed to be a bad thing. What’s your excuse?

By The Peoples for a Nuked' Amerika' Century~!

February 13, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

-=-

No (Andy) [I presume because that seems to be your typing style]

Thomas is not DDR nor BlackAdder nor anyone else.

Thomas is Thomas!

Thomas has a single second alt name (PNAC).

Thomas doesn’t “namejack” as that is childish and stupid no matter who does it.

Thats all folks, so grow up already!

Thomas/PNAC

By Edwin Williams

February 13, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

I guess if I give a relevant history lesson, my comment won’t be posted?

By Mike

February 13, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

Thos poor Iranians. Thank goodness Mikey and other liberal partisans are here to stick up for them.

Ever think you might see Mikey or any of the other partisan liberals at the AJC criticize Iran? Of course not. No liberal is capable of criticizing anyone who is not an American conservative. The rest of the world are just vicitims.

By SarahConnah

February 13, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

Proof positive: “I’ma repubican, fool me once…I’m yours!”

By It's the childsplay thing moron

February 13, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Blackadder A/K/A Thomas A/K/A PNAC A/K/A DebbieDR and all others.

It’s the child in you. You like playmates don’t you or do you only play with the ones in your mind?

I’ll take your 11:11 as an admission of guilt.

By J McCormick

February 13, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

Ms Godzilla- Thanks for the fax numbers for GA congreesmen. I sent off a note to all three, I’m not going to sit silently this time. More importantly, my finger is already poised above the touch screeen for the 2008 election.

Voted Demmocrat for the first time in November and the sky still hasn’t fallen so I expect my next vote will be against the big government imperial Republicans and their constant lying to the american voter. Against Republicans = For Democrats.

The ball is in the Republican court. C’mon Republicans, “make my day” and keep supporting George Bush’s lunacy. I got something for you in 2008. Come and get it.

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

Now for the topic at hand:

The White House put extra time into developing the strategy for rolling out the “evidence” against Iran. From today’s NY Times, it’s pretty clear that they worked extra hard trying to figure out who would say what, when and where. But that doesn’t matter. At the core, it’s a Bush team production — and that automatically raises doubts.

The Bush Administration has no credibility. None. No one believes them.

Bush can mock those who say he wants war with Iran, which, in fact, he literally did yesterday on CNN. See it for yourself at Think Progress. He can mock his critics, but they’re on to him. No one trusts Bush anymore.

By Scooter

February 13, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

The Peoples for a Nuked’ Amerika’ Century, you really dissected the points I made and made astute rebuttals to those points (sarc). Tell you what sport, you continue to patriotically limit the powers of your own country and the media will be sure to keep you ignorant of the acts and strategies of foreign governments. You do realize that other nations seek global expansionism and world domination, don’t you? Or, do their intentions not cause concern to you? Perhaps you prefer to wait until others’ strength and capabilities reach that of Hitler, after years of violating the Treaty of Versailles, before you will be willing to act? Are you beginning to see how everything is relative to perception? Yes, I prefer America be the leader of the free world. Who do you prefer lead?

It is for people like you that my grandchildren will live in a world that is led/ruled by a nation less freedom loving than ours. ALLAH Achbar, click, bang!

By LuckoDull

February 13, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq’s government said on Tuesday it had closed its borders with Syria and Iran and extended the hours of a night curfew in Baghdad under a U.S.- backed security plan to rein in violence in the capital.

Gosh, I wonder why would they do that?

Close the border on those peace loving Ironians??

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Sir Dullard Of Gasbaghdad: If I were addressing you, I will call you “Sir Dullard Of Gasbaghdad.”

Understood?

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

J McCormick,

If you’re relying on Mrs. Godzilla to get info to contact GA congressmen then you are not a very informed voter.

Moreover, if you think that only a few weeks in office is enough time for the Dems to wreck the country, then you are a blooming idiot.

By Brad

February 13, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

You are right! I have suspected that there are only two or three leftist idiots spuing out all of this pessimistic liberal nonsense.

By The Peoples for a Nuked' Amerika' Century~!

February 13, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

-=-

Bah -

Enough of this garbage of who I am -

I already stated it clearly and truthfully, so deal with it dirt for brains.

Mike

I think you should consider this. Iran is a theocracy, and I certainly have no love or respect for the Iranian leaders. They have not openly attacked us (yet) other than deposing the Shah of Iran and the one incident of taking hostages afterwards. But they are definitly not our friends!

They are absolutly a threat in the middle east, and Iran should be considered a very dangerous country. Nukes in their hands would be bad, just as it was for North Korea to have the bomb now. To see them gain power in Iraq is scarey!

Our President (and his associates of the PNAC thinktank), had the full intention of dominating the middle east. The problem with their thinktank, is it was composed of a group of people who put no real thought into their desires. They charged in without considering the consequences thinking they could win completly with ease. They forgot about the need for Diplomacy and that has put this nation (USA) in a bad situation.

Now Bush and Co are negotiting with North Korea and pretty much with the same terms that Carter had done before. Only now it’s too late as Carter was trying to prevent the DPRK from aquiring nuclear weapons. I’d say Bush’s negotiation is too late now.

And now Iran is researching Nukes (don’t think for a minute that they are not).

But another attack on another country (without diplomacy) will yet again cost us dearly.

Of course this is nothing to you since it came from a liberal

Thomas/PNAC

-=-

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

Craig — who the h3ll are you and which rock did you crawl out from under? Is this a new nick?

Muffin, honey, I understand why you get so uncomfortable when someone says, openly, “I want to verify what Bush is saying”. Now granted, that would not happen if Bush did not lie so damn much, but since him stopping his lying is not a real option, we’re stuck with the second best thing. Sorry. C’est la vie, as our smarter allies say.

By LuckoDull

February 13, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

DURHAM, N.H. — In his first stumble, White House hopeful Barack Obama on Monday took back words from the day before, when he said the lives of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq were “wasted.”

His “first stumble,” eh?

So we DO agree that Iraq is a worthy cause.

He immediately realized he made a mistake, he later told a reporter.

But is that what these two faced partisan hacks are really thinking?

Huh, huh?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Lord Help Us

February 13, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

Thomas,

Please do not refer to a Bush ‘thinktank.’

In this Administration it is a ‘belieftank.’

‘Belieftank’ does not infer any doubt.

By Huge

February 13, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

From last night’s “Reagan nor any of these neo-con numbskulls are conservatives” confab - the bigot ASSUMES that I think that Goldwater is the only “true conservative”.

So here we have yet another example of how the poor thing never understood the old adage about better to be thought a fool then to open her mouth and remove all doubt!

Barry Goldwater?!!

The guy who just loved Joe McCarthy? The guy who opposed the Civil Rights ACT of 1964? The guy who could only carry his own state and five of the most bigoted southern states in his shellacking at the hands of LBJ? The guy who would have gotten everybody on the planet killed with quotes like, “Let’s lob one into the men’s room at the Kremlin.” The guy who actually sued a sitting president when he normalized relations with mainland China?

Granted he wasn’t a disgusting pig like you and your kind on issues like abortion and gays. And he was intelligent and moral enough to see the demented religious right as dangerous opponents of personal liberty. (“I think every good Christian ought to kick Jerry Falwell right in the a$$.”)

But his best quote ever may have been 1989’s statement that the Republican Party had been taken over by a “bunch of kooks.”

In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post the retired senator said, “When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

(We’re kissing, Senator!)

And he did correctly note that Ronnie was a right wing stooge for coddling dictators as in the Iran-Contra debacle.(I’d say it’s the g0ddamn stupidest foreign policy blunder this country’s ever made!)

So by and large he was obviously much, much better than Ronnie, but what people now call libertarian.

So instead of actually understanding and telling all of us what it is, just keep telling yourself that empty slogans like “peace through strength” is the definition of conservatism.

And we’ll just keep laughing at you!

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

Rushncap,

C’est la guerre is a far more appropriate phrase than C’est la vie in this case, but it is laughable that you attribute the phrase to “our smarter allies” as if it were some arcane expression like “a la mode”.

While you’re paraphrasing Dodd, maybe you could tell us who said this: “Such accusations cannot be relied upon or be presented as evidence. The United States has a long history in fabricating evidence. Such charges are unacceptable”.

Listen munchkin, this is the bottom line:

If Bush lied so did all your favorite Democrats. How many times do you need to have this obvious yet inconvenient fact repeated to you? The problem must be that you can’t put the XXX down long enough to “concentrate” on reality.

By Huge

February 13, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Good call J. McCormick!

However don’t rule out voting for good independent or libertarian candidates.

Since 1968 it’s been safe to say that everyday a republican is in the white house is a bad day for this nation.

For proof, just look at these awful bush worshipers here!

By Brad

February 13, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

You are right! I have suspected that there are only two or three leftist idiots spuing out all of this pessimistic liberal nonsense.

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 13, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

J McCormick,

No problem. Use them often. Pass the kindness along.

I’m proud of your first steps.

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

Huge 12:02

Excellent post!

By Edwin Williams

February 13, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Sometimes I look at the calendar and I think that it must be wrong and the date really has to be August, 1939 and Mike Luckovich is Sir Samuel Hoare or some other peace at any pricer!

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

Brad - We got it the first time. Nobody responded because it was a moronic statement. Can’t you come up with anything else?

By Lord Help Us

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

BD,

Please provide some background for me.

I’m looking for Dems that tied 9/11 to Saddam or identified those helium producing trucks as ‘mobile bio weapons labs…’

Or, Dems that insisted those aluminum tubes were for enriching uranium, or that those pilotless drones were for spreading chem/bio weapons.

Because those were the alrming justifications used by the Bush Admin in the months before this war.

Thanks in advance…

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

Blow Blowhard,

Here are some charming quotes of yours from Wooten’s last weekend, so you may want to keep that Pot to Kettle thing in mind, particularly since it would be impossible for you to find similarly gutter bound phraseology from moi.

{{{I just love seeing you idiotic neo-cons soil yourselves whenever I mention his name!…you ignorant slut..diseased, filthy adherents… The non-irony that neo-con scum like bigot…Just like his disgusting political spawn…you filthy animal…that repulsive bigot.}}}

Just a sampling of your bilious and vulgar blogging tactics, Huge Piggy Boy. Gosh, and to think that you showed up here claiming to be the prophet of moderation.

GFY.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

LHU,

You’re kidding right?

By Truthman

February 13, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

So, in today’s letters to the editor, a Mr. Jack Gibson of Smyrna says Abraham Lincoln was not a uniter. That his election led to southern secession and “his tragic war to save the Union.”

And southerners wonder why we northern transplants make fun of the southerners?

“Tragic war to save the Union?” That is code for “Hell no, I’ll never fergit!!”

The confederacy was no better than Al-Qaida or Hamas in subjugating human beings to their lowest, most base level of inhumanity.

The confederacy was wrong then, wrong now and will always be wrong. There is no glory in it!

By IN THE NEWS

February 13, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Austrian rifles used in Iraq, reports say dpa German Press Agency Published: Tuesday February 13, 2007

Vienna- Reports of US soldiers confiscating around 100 Austrian-made sniper rifles in Iraq have not yet been confirmed by Austrian officials. Spokespersons for both the interior and foreign ministries and the manufacturer stressed that they had not yet received any official information on whether the weapons really originated in Austria.

By Lord Help Us

February 13, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Nope.

BD, but I’ll assume from your evasion that you have been torched yet again…

By Devastator

February 13, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

Anyone that continues to support this war is just playing politics. Meaning that they are just being loyal to their republican President and not seriously considering the facts and terrible cost to this country and to the world. If a democratic President had done the same thing Bush did, you would be calling for his/her head.

Supporting this war for political reasons is more important to you than American lives. I hope you’re proud of yourselves.

By LuckoDull

February 13, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

I have a real need to feel manly today. Think I’ll go sit in the pickup truck and make rmmm-rmmm sounds.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

Please tell Blow Blowhard that this is an excellent recap of the GOP’s civil rights initiatives and puts truth to power about Barry Goldwater’s vote:

July 2, 1964: Democratic President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd’s 14-hour filibuster and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats (including Tennessee’s Al Gore, Sr.) failed to scuttle the measure. Illinois Republican Everett Dirksen rallied 26 GOP senators and 44 Democrats to invoke cloture and allow the bill’s passage. According to John Fonte in the January 9, 2003, National Review, 82 percent of Republicans so voted, versus only 66 percent of Democrats.

True, Senator Barry Goldwater (R., Ariz.) opposed this bill the very year he became the GOP’s presidential standard-bearer. However, Goldwater supported the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and called for integrating Arizona’s National Guard two years before Truman desegregated the military. Goldwater feared the 1964 Act would limit freedom of association in the private sector, a controversial but principled libertarian objection rooted in the First Amendment rather than racial hatred.

And

Before he was a public official, Barry Goldwater integrated his family business. When he was a city councilman in Phoenix, he became a founding member of the Arizona NAACP, and he remained a proud member until his death.4

By Brian Curtis

February 13, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

BDanish: And yet, who claimed that there was sufficient evidence to justify starting a pre-emptive war? And who actually launched that war?

That was Bush, and Bush alone. And he was wrong. Keep spinning, but the inescapable truth is that Bush is responsible for the Iraq blunder.

By Goldie

February 13, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

{{Liberals should love Pres Bush (federal spending is up, up, up!).}}

G’day uberPaul— you’re wrong again, mate. Liberals love a balanced budget, pay-as-you-go kinda system — which is foreign to the Neo-cons who’ve taken over the Repugnant Party. They don’t “tax ‘n spend”— they prefer to “charge ‘n spend”, creating a horrible mess for America!

By LuckoDull

February 13, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

What do Bob Woodward, Robert Novak, Walter Pincus, David Sanger, Glenn Kessler, and Evan Thomas have in common? They’re all reporters, of course, and on Monday, in testimony at the perjury and obstruction trial of Lewis Libby, each had much the same story. Each was covering events in Washington during that intense period in mid-2003 when the Bush administration came under attack from former ambassador Joseph Wilson over its case for war in Iraq. Each interviewed Libby, then Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. And each heard nothing from Libby about Valerie Plame Wilson.

Yeah, it sure looks like Fitzgerald got the “right” man.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Just the facts Blowhard.

BARRY GOLDWATER, liberal hero?

An interview in this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine with C.C. Goldwater reveals that her HBO film to be aired Sept. 18 paints her late grandfather, Sen. Barry Goldwater, “as a kind of liberal,” with testimonials from Al Franken, Sen. Ted Kennedy, James Carville and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Blow Blowhard is bucking the Mainstream Democrat Party with his demonization of Goldwater.

By Truthman

February 13, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Hey, the Iraqis who don’t want us there are building their IEDs with stuff left over from when they were our friends (remember the Iran-Iraq war? Remember in 1986 when the “Dick” Cheney presenting Saddam Hussein with matching pearl-handled pistols).

My point? Who cares about Austrian sniper rifles when most of our guys and ladies are dying from our own munitions?

By Huge

February 13, 2007 01:00 PM | Link to this

Blackadder,

Thanks. I truly believe that not one of these neo-cons will EVER have the courage to try and explain how they can get away with calling themselves conservatives. Hell, they can’t even provide ONE example of how their delusional beliefs are conservative. NOT ONE. But it sure is fun watching them go apesh!t trying to convince themselves that they are!

BTW, cool name.

Appeasing the hate-mongers, like die brainless (peace thru strength!) and curly (everybody’s going to hell but me!) is the antithesis of acting in the best interests of this great nation.

We’ve shut down the “conservative” bigots in the Klan. We’ve shut down the “conservative” anti-choice nuts. We’ve gotten the “ultra-conservative” bible thumpers out of public schools and we’ve virtually eradicated gay hate crimes committed by good “conservatives”. We can certainly emasculate a few of the very worst liberty hating “conservative” neo-cons here.

Trying to reason with them or understand them is futile and non-productive.

The only thing that matters anymore is that they continually be exposed as the anti-social and immoral vermin they are and to show just how little useful capital they have in the market place of American ideas.

By Huge

February 13, 2007 01:02 PM | Link to this

Thanks for proving my point bigot.

Completely unlike yourself and the other nauseating neo-cons, Goldwater got better as he aged. He made amends for his earlier mistakes and I respect him for that.

In other words he became more liberal.

By IN THE NEWS

February 13, 2007 01:03 PM | Link to this

But Truthman, what if we bomb Austria?

By Goldie

February 13, 2007 01:03 PM | Link to this

{{The confederacy was no better than Al-Qaida or Hamas in subjugating human beings to their lowest, most base level of inhumanity.}}

Truthman— I was raised here in GA and I can tell you that you’re not too far off the mark with your comments… Georgia is still struggling to come out of the 19th century. I shudder to think what the Confederacy would be like today if the southern states had indeed seceded!

By Goldie

February 13, 2007 01:08 PM | Link to this

Good ‘toon, Lucko — reminds me of Gen. Colin Powell going to the U.N. in early 2003 and showing those hand-drawn diagrams of the “mobile bio-labs”, and frightening many Americans out of their senses…

By Goldie

February 13, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this

{{Supporting this war for political reasons is more important to you than American lives. I hope you’re proud of yourselves.}}

Go, Devastator!

By Huge

February 13, 2007 01:17 PM | Link to this

Devastator,

Your 12:42 couldn’t be more correct.

And these disgusting neo-con chickenhawks make me sick to my stomach for doing so.

By Goldie

February 13, 2007 01:17 PM | Link to this

{{He made amends for his earlier mistakes and I respect him for that.}}

You’re correct, Huge— the same can almost be said about Tricky Dick Nixon, too! He may have been the last true conservative to live at the White House. I say that, and I’m no Nixon-lover… reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw, maybe 2 years ago which said:

“I never thought I’d miss Nixon!”

By Edwin Williams

February 13, 2007 01:18 PM | Link to this

I hardly think that anyone is supporting this war for political reasons at this point, Goldie! I think that anyone who supports this war is doing so because he thinks it is the right thing to do. It is those like Hillary and the Johns who have turned coat who are being political!

By Huge

February 13, 2007 01:21 PM | Link to this

So now it appears that the bigot is even more confused. Was Goldwater a conservative or a liberal?

Must be hellishly hard to figure out when you have no clue what constitutes either one! And have nothing more to rely on but sound bites and empty phrases!

By Edwin Williams

February 13, 2007 01:28 PM | Link to this

We also must consider what the world will be like if those who live to subjugate women and foist their religious, economic and other extreme views win. Turn the clock back to 1939 and ask the same question!

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 01:28 PM | Link to this

Edwin, Can you tell us why you support this war? Why we’re there? Why we went there in the first place? When we will know when we’ve “won”?

By Devastator

February 13, 2007 01:29 PM | Link to this

Edwin Williams,

You are incorrect. The primary reason people support the war at this point is to keep from having to admit they made a mistake. I made the mistake myself of supporting Bush initially because I thought they would find weapons of mass destruction. I, like a lot of people, were fooled into a situation that will go down in history as the greatest military blunder in world history.

For every soldier that is killed, Republicans come up with a new excuse to move forward with war. It is not the right thing to do.

By Huge

February 13, 2007 01:29 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

Excellent bumper sticker!

I also loved the one when I was voting for the very first time: “Don’t Change Dicks in the Middle of a Screw, Vote for Nixon in ‘72”

I did the moral and sensible thing. I voted for McGovern.

It is also almost hysterical to watch the reaction from these neo-cons when I relate how Nixon said that Ronnie’s part in the fall of Russia was completely overblown. So did Ford.

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 01:32 PM | Link to this

Sane foreign policy officials and observers often support diplomacy and negotiation even in the face of apparent problems. We negotiate with our allies, our adversaries, and even our enemies because the opportunity to solve problems by a combination of political carrots and sticks is very often better than the alternatives. Whereas diplomacy can benefit multiple sides, or at least allow for saving face, even winning a war frequently involves heavy costs. Finding a middle ground doesn’t necessarily make you feel great — as Calvin of Calvin & Hobbes once said, “A good compromise leaves everybody mad” — but again, it’s often better than the alternatives. Politics is the art of the possible.

But successful diplomacy requires good faith. Talking is not enough. A nation must have trust to be effective, and trust (or lack thereof) can be dependent on its leader or governing administration. Right now, other nations are, understandably, worried about ending up like poor Satchel here, in a classic strip of one of the greatest comics ever.

By Edwin Williams

February 13, 2007 01:39 PM | Link to this

Huge - an American liberal is someone who believes in confiscation of the wages of others to be spent as he and the other “intelligencia” see fit. An American conservative believes in individual liberty and responsibllity. That is what Barry Goldwater was. As was Ronald Reagan. The super rich like Ted Kennedy and Jay Rockefeller are the former.

By Lord Help Us

February 13, 2007 01:40 PM | Link to this

EW(e),

You seem confused, so I am going to help you…

You see when you warn moderate Americans about ‘those who live to subjugate women and foist their religious, economic and other extreme views,’ we think of the current GOP and the manner in which it has been assimilated by the religious right.

If you were talking about Muslims/Sharia Law then you also need help…

You see, I do not believe that the citizens of this country are facing ANY threat of being subjected to Sharia Law.

Call me foolish for having faith in our Nation…

But, the fear of Islamists overtaking our current laws, constitution and Democracy is the fear of a very weak-minded person.

By Huge

February 13, 2007 01:46 PM | Link to this

Edwin,

Everything about this war is political! And no matter what position you now have (go or stay) the political ramifications of that one decision may have everything to do with whether you, as an elected leader stay in office or not.

I do agree that there were some Dems who voted to give you know who the power to do you what, simply to save their political lives. Maybe smart, maybe savvy. But not terribly brave.

And now some of them, including many on the gop side, have seen the light?

For me that is, with very, very few exceptions, going to be a deal breaker. I’ll almost certainly never vote for anyone foolish enough to give this president that kind of power, knowing full well that he had already demonstrated questionable ethics and unquestionable incompetency.

The politicians who had the guts to say no to Bush’s preemptive invasion from the very beginning are the most courageous ones we had.

By Lord Help Us

February 13, 2007 01:46 PM | Link to this

EW(e),

Do you believe that there should be no taxes, and, therefore no ‘confiscation of the wages of others…’?

I would be fascinated to know the answers to a couple of key questions:

First, how should the gov’t pay for the reasonable services it provides?

Second, who are the candidates you support that reflect your beliefs?

Thanks!

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 01:47 PM | Link to this

Edwin, I am an American liberal who does NOT believe in the confiscation of the wages of others. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t it the Republicans who, in the middle of the night, came up with the income tax?

I believe everyone should pay their fair share. Unless you’re uber-rich you should be against Bush’s tax cut schemes.

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 01:48 PM | Link to this

BTW Edwin - you never answered my question but then I didn’t really expect you to:

“Edwin, Can you tell us why you support this war? Why we’re there? Why we went there in the first place? When we will know when we’ve “won”?”

By Goldie

February 13, 2007 01:55 PM | Link to this

{{An American conservative believes in individual liberty and responsibllity.}}

So, Edwin— which leaders of the Repugnant Party today reflects those beliefs? Please list the names…

By Devastator

February 13, 2007 01:56 PM | Link to this

Edwin Williams,

You seem to be unable to defend yourself and your ridiculous support for the Iraq war. All you do is provide us with vague info about things we already have heard before and disagree with. Are you going to enlighten us with an intelligent reason for your support or continue to be a sound board.

By Truthman

February 13, 2007 01:56 PM | Link to this

Well Edwin Williams, you prove what I have always thought about Repubs; that they care more about money, and especially keeping as much of their own as possible, than any other issue.

Family, the War, health care, treasonous executive branch, the environment? Forget ‘em! If they need my money, then I don’t like it!

Gimme, Gimme, Gimme…just $$$$!!

“Love of money is the root of all evil!”

By Huge

February 13, 2007 01:57 PM | Link to this

Edwin,

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt about not reading my post to BD to NOT use sound bites and empty phrases as a definition.

It indicates a complete lack of understanding or perhaps a fear of embarrassment about being unable to ascribe specifics to the topic of conservatism.

It is about as meaningless as “peace through strength” or “Moderates - somewhere in the middle” or “Neo-cons rush to war”. They say nothing as does your 1:39.

But you’re welcome to try again.

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 02:10 PM | Link to this

Amanda Marcotte resigned from the Edwards campaign today per an announcement on her blog Pandagon.

“Regardless, it was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can’t do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn’t have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won’t do it. I resigned my position today and they accepted.”

I find it very sad that she felt the need to cave in to the religious wrong but I understand she did it for the good of the campaign.

By Edwin Williams

February 13, 2007 02:14 PM | Link to this

Huge - you cannot describe conservatism with any kind of accuracy. Please do so if you can. I gave a very terse, but accurrate, definition. Also, you spout the usual trite, inaccurate blather about conservatives which liberals use when they cannot defend their own views -i.e the rest of us are too stupid to make our own decisions!

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 02:16 PM | Link to this

How many paragraphs has it taken for Blow Blowhard to state that in his opinion neither Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan are conservatives?

I don’t know, maybe Blowhard thinks that David Duke is a conservative amd he’s yearning to vote for him?

What a dumbass.

LHU,

We did not pursue the policy of regime change in Iraq solely or even mostly because of aluminum tubes, although I don’t doubt that there is some aluminum foil crowning your pate.

By Breaking News- Hope for America!

February 13, 2007 02:17 PM | Link to this

BERKELEY, Calif. - A chemical in male sweat can boost mood, {{{{brain activity}}}} and sexual arousal in heterosexual women, according to a new study released just in time for Valentine’s Day.

Finally, hope for America! My bet is that King George has the mind of a heterosexual woman. He lies to get real men to do what he wants, charges up my credit card, appears to have PMS, and performs figurative f****** on every hillbilly redneck he can hornswoggle. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

So if the Chimperor has the mind of a heterosexual woman, the ‘chemical in male sweat (that) can boost {{{{brain activity}}}}’ may leave the nation some hope for the next two years. All we have to do is have Prince Cheney sit on King Georges face three or four times a day in order to boost his brain activity!

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 02:27 PM | Link to this

Blackadder,

Awwwwwwww. The weird and foul-mouthed Mistress Amanda had to resign and she’s blaming the whole thing on that horrible Catholic Bill Donahue.

Gosh, it couldn’t have anything to do with her psycho statements that any normal person, regardless of religious affiliation, would find “offensive” and unworthy of a Presidential candidate like the Breck Girl?

Here’s a little theatre for you - Mistress Amanda in her own words.

By Huge

February 13, 2007 02:29 PM | Link to this

Huge - you cannot describe conservatism with any kind of accuracy.

If you believe so Edwin, fine. But you are dead wrong.

And when I can find even one so-called conservative on these blogs to explain in any logical, cogent terms the definition that you guys seem terrified to discuss, I’ll help you out immeasurably.

You are the fourth neo-con I’ve asked. In two cases the question was completely avoided. And in the other two, all I got was sloganeering. And sadly it is now crystal clear that you can do nothing better than to talk in those slogans, as is the case in that entire 2:14.

So be it. I’m not that surprised.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 02:30 PM | Link to this

Hey! Have we been honored with Mistress Amanda’s presence at 2:17 with her interpretation of “Breaking news” about sweat from a “scientific” study?

By IN THE NEWS

February 13, 2007 02:36 PM | Link to this

Minority Leader Boehner’s (R-OH) speech today in the House is really worth a close listen. When did this war start? The Iraq War, that is? Not in Iraq. Not even on 9/11. It turns out it started with the Iranian hostage crisis.

By RIP

February 13, 2007 02:39 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - Rep. Charles Norwood (news, bio, voting record), Jr., a seven-term Republican congressman from Georgia, died Tuesday after battling cancer and lung disease. He was 65.

Norwood died at his home in Augusta, Ga., early Tuesday afternoon, his office said. The House interrupted debate on an Iraq war resolution for a moment of silence in his honor.

Norwood suffered from a chronic lung disease and later developed metastatic cancer that spread from his lung to his liver. He had declined further treatment last week and returned home to Georgia to receive hospice care.

This liberal Democrat says……… may God bless him and his family.

By Huge

February 13, 2007 02:40 PM | Link to this

Hey, how few words can the mistress of misspeak use to avoid saying anything relevant or meaningful on the topic of conservatism.

Maybe she thinks she’s one!

C’mon bigot, help Edwin out here and give him some more trite slogans to use!

By The Peoples for a Nuked' Amerika' Century~!

February 13, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this

-=-

Shame about Norwood -

He was a Class act there.

I was hoping he would have had at least some more time at home before dying.

Rest in Peace Charles, you served your country and State well.

Thomas

-=-

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 02:46 PM | Link to this

Strange place, the names look familiar but the posts sound like I’ve stumbled into a moonbat cheerleading competition.

{{{Bush Sux!!}}}

{{{YOU RAWK!!!}}}

{{{{Great Post, YEW RAWK}}}}}

{{{{{Thanx but YEW RAWK and Bush Sux]]]]]

{{{{{GOOOOOOOO libby libs!!!!}}}}}

Freaking morons.

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 02:47 PM | Link to this

Muffin, why are you so concerned with porn?

Democrats were mislead by Bush as much as the rest of the public. Deal with it. I’m glad to see you admit that Bush lied, however. Must be sticking in your throat like a broken, jagged bone.

And yes, France has been proved to be our smarter ally. Just count the number of French bodies brought home from Iraq to the # of American bodies. Yes yes, I know, dying for Danish’s patriotic zeal is more important than living, but still…

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 02:53 PM | Link to this

Blowhard,

Why don’t you define it for us, okay jackass?

I am perfectly capable of doing it but I realize that is is a lose-lose exercise as it will just end up with you posting more long-winded and vulgar bloviations where you angrily denounce me and tell me what a filthy, diseased, bigoted, neo-con slut I am.

Thanks, but no thanks.

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 02:59 PM | Link to this

rushncap - it’s not only French bodies not being brought home from Iraq but there are no German or Canadian bodies either. Why didn’t they go after Canada or Germany with the same fervor they went after France with?

By Goldie

February 13, 2007 03:00 PM | Link to this

{{-i.e the rest of us are too stupid to make our own decisions!}}

Well put, Edwin — I couldn’t have posted in more succinct words than that!

By The Watcher

February 13, 2007 03:00 PM | Link to this

Did I really see Bi Danish calling somebody else weird, foul mouthed and offensive? Holy crap Batman, that is the pot calling the kettle black!.

How many times did she use “dumbas$” today?

Bi Baby Cake - YOU ARE THE SINGLE LARGEST HYPOCRITE HERE.

The Watcher is not freakin afraid of bad words, and uses them when he sees fit. But you, a lying, bigoted, ignorant, short sighted, dip stick who regular wallows up to her wrinkled little pigeon neck in the worst of it around here - to get all “hoity toity” on us - takes away all your street cred.

Each day you become more of a ridiculous figure.

By Edwin Williams

February 13, 2007 03:00 PM | Link to this

Huge again I ask, DEFINE conservatism for me. The definition of an American conservative is someone who believes in individual responsibility and as little government interference in the economy as possible. I also would like you to define a liberal. I notice that you did not disagree with my definition. I also will put my IQ of 142 up against yours any day, you condescending !@#$

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 03:01 PM | Link to this

BD - Are you capable of posting without the name calling? Didn’t think so. It really demeans your opinion.

By Edwin Williams

February 13, 2007 03:02 PM | Link to this

Huge - by the way I am NOT a neo-con, never have been. Define that for me too!

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 03:02 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

I have not “admitted that Bush lied”. He told the truth, but the lying Machiavellian Democrats are pretending that they didn’t do or say what they did when they did it.

To wit, you need a little refresher in 20th Century history, munchkin. Clinton formulated the policy of Regime Change in Iraq long before Bush appeared on the scene.

As for porn, I find it hilarious that you claim it helps you concentrate, among other assertions. I am not concerned with “it” in the least.

By Truthman

February 13, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

“All man’s death dimishes me for I am involved in mankind.”

-John Locke

May your family find peace in your release from pain, Mr. Norwood.

TM

By Mike

February 13, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

Notice how the AJC refuses to cover the North Korea arms deal?

The AJC goes to great lengths to not cover anything positive. No wonder the libs who get there news here think America sucks. The AJC editors are far more interested in pushing their anti-American propoganda than in doing their real job: reporting the news.

Local newspapers are a public trust. The AJC and its band of rabid partisans have abused that trust in order to push their own narrow views.

By WashingtonState

February 13, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

By Edwin Williams

February 13, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

By the way Huge you are the sloganeering bigot, not me. You are never open to hear or digest others’ views and opinions, only to bloviate, critisize and surrender to ben Laden.

By Truthman

February 13, 2007 03:06 PM | Link to this

Check that! The quote is by John Donne, not John Locke.

My apologies. TM

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 03:07 PM | Link to this

Back on the subject of Mike’s excellent ‘toon, I admit, I don’t know much about bomb-making. And I don’t know much about how factories label bombs. But I do know that in Iran virtually all numbers are in the Farsi-Arabic script. They do not resemble our numbers. Now, I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that the implication that this round captured in the photo is bogus. Color me very skeptical. Any thoughts?

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 03:09 PM | Link to this

If you are not concerned with “it” in the least, why do you keep talking about it?

There are different ways to affect “regime change”, Muffin. Bush chose by far the worst. He managed to change the regime to something even worse. While impressive (dramatic failure usually is) it’s also both criminal (Saddam was not a threat) and incompetent.

By Pot n Kettle Politics

February 13, 2007 03:09 PM | Link to this

JAKARTA (AFP) - Top US General Peter Pace said the discovery of Iranian-made bombs and arrest of Iranians in Iraq did not indicate Tehran had been arming insurgents fighting coalition forces, contradicting claims by the US government.

You gotta respect Gen Pace. Here’s an objective commander who isn’t jumping to conclusions and is nobodys’ mouthpiece.

Iranian arms could have been sold to any country or individual in the world and then been diverted back into Iraq. Hell, America sells enough arms overseas that we sure as hell ‘can’t call the kettle black’! We have all had a buttload of Republican unfounded accusations and outright lies. WMD’s anyone?

By regulator

February 13, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this

Mike, All we’ve read in every news service in America, including the AJC, is about the North Korean arms deal, what planet are you on, this deal reminds me of the old saying, Even a wild hog finds an acorn sometimes, its not like its the second coming.

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 03:12 PM | Link to this

“an American conservative is someone who believes in individual responsibility and as little government interference in the economy as possible: -EW

I thought Republicans were for “as little government interference” in all aspects. When did they add the “in the economy” part?

This administration has been all about control and expanding government. How can you, as a conservative, support that?

By Mike

February 13, 2007 03:14 PM | Link to this

Hey Pot. Look at all of these other “liars”. Funny, they don’t seem to be Republicans. Please tell me if they are liars too.

“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 inspe

By Edwin Williams

February 13, 2007 03:15 PM | Link to this

Back to Mike’s really bad toon. All I can say Blackadder is to turn back your clock to 1939 and change your name to Daladier!

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 03:15 PM | Link to this

Watcher and Blackadder,

If you can’t tell the difference between words like “dumbass” and “filthy animal”, “slut” and the like then you are hopeless dunces. Which we already knew, but I digress.

Nothing could be more hypocritical than the fact that Huge Blowhard uses the most disgusting, vile and malicious language and you ignore him because he pretends to be an oh so sweet liberal, but come after me for the mildest G rated adjectives.

By Mike

February 13, 2007 03:15 PM | Link to this

“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 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 Edwin Williams

February 13, 2007 03:17 PM | Link to this

Excellent Mike. Thanks for the breath of fresh air. I doubt they read it though. Too many truths and multisyllabic words.

By LuckoDull

February 13, 2007 03:18 PM | Link to this

By Anti Radical February 13, 2007 02:17 PM All we have to do is have Prince Cheney sit on King Georges face three or four times a day in order to boost his brain activity!

Spammie: So how long did it take you to come up with that “gem?”

Or does it just come natural for you to be able to imagine two men getting “nasty” with eachother.

The description of the “act” really did seem like it just rolled off your tongue.

Sicko.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By More Republican Thieves

February 13, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

SAN DIEGO - The CIA’s former No. 3 official and a defense contractor were charged Tuesday with fraud and other offenses in the corruption investigation that sent former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham to prison, The Associated Press has learned.

Federal indictments named Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, executive director of the CIA until he resigned in May, and his close friend, San Diego defense contractor Brent Wilkes, both 52, according to two government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because grand jury proceedings are secret.

Is there never any end to Republican corruption?

By Edwin Williams

February 13, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

Blackadder - it is not just the economy, but that is the important part. There is also a big difference in today’s world between economic and social conservatives. I am the former, not the latter. I never have been the latter. Most conservatives are the former not the latter. Most liberals never can tell me when government should get out of our business, literally!

By Mike

February 13, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

Hey Pot. One other thing. I agree with your statment that “You gotta respect Gen Pace. Here’s an objective commander who isn’t jumping to conclusions and is nobodys’ mouthpiece.”

Pace has been a consistent defender of the war, its legality, its morality, its goals, its tacticts and its leaders. Do you respect his objecivity in these matters, too? Or are you just shooting off first thought that drifts through your transom?

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 03:21 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

I’m referring to how it has not improved your ability to concentrate, but had the effect of slowing you down.

Regarding Iraq, See the quotes from Mike above^^^^. If regime change was so easy then why didn’t Clinton manage it in the 8 years of his Presidency?

I’ve had enough of your little munchkin game of woulda coulda shoulda.

By Mike

February 13, 2007 03:25 PM | Link to this

One last thought. Anyone who thinks that Bush lied about the war and the above Democrats did not is:

a) a rabid partisan who is incabable of intellectual honesty.

or

b) delusional with mindless hatred for those who don’t share their narrow views.

Any other options out there, haters of Bush?

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 13, 2007 03:25 PM | Link to this

Blackadder

I saw that this morning….

I have never seen real shells, but those sure look American made.

Did you see the actual Power Point Presentation? TPM has it.

It did not make me feel warm and fuzzy.

By LuckoDull

February 13, 2007 03:25 PM | Link to this

Since the liberals have taken to defining Conservatism, like they should know all about it, is it safe to say that I can make some assumptions and render my description of your average liberal?

Hehehehe:

A “girlfriendless” “metrosexual” who wants government keeping a close eye on everybody but them, taking everybody’s money but theirs and carries their lame as-ses through life like a mother would tote a toddler.

To be continued.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 03:27 PM | Link to this

BD - the difference is, and correct me if I’m wrong (I’m sure you will regardless), that Huge seems to do it defensively (usually in response to you or someone like you) and you do it offensively. Usually in response to an opinion someone has.

By The Watcher

February 13, 2007 03:31 PM | Link to this

Bi Cheesecake

AH, it’s the “It’s only a bad name if somebody else uses it” defense.

Ridiculous, laughingstock, hypocrite.

You are so full of bull it stinks - even through all the tubes on the internets!

By Edwin Williams

February 13, 2007 03:33 PM | Link to this

Is there no end to Democrat corruption? Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta (Bill Campbell), Mike Espy. I could go on, but I need to get going here.

By The Watcher

February 13, 2007 03:38 PM | Link to this

Mike @ 3:14

Let’s see if we can help you.

Part One

BUSH lied. Cheney Lied. Rumsfeld lied.

Smoking Gun could be mushroom cloud. Yellow Cake. Anodized Tubes. Anthrax.

Be scared democrats, your folks back home are.

Part 2

Good folks believed those ba$tards. Voted to give Bush authority to go to war.

Part 3

Finally found out BUSH lied. Cheney Lied. Rumsfeld lied. Democrats, All Americans duped.

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

Do you want it in crayola? Small Case?

Part 4

Lather Rinse Repeat Iran Nukes. Armed by Iran….

how long will ignor-anuses like you stand for this?

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 03:38 PM | Link to this

Mikey — nice last thought. Wrong, but cute. The Congress was lied to as well as the American people. And it more or less gutlessly went along with what Bush wanted. Bush is a criminal. Congress are bystanders who did nothing to prevent the crime. Yes, both are guilty, but one guilt is worse than the other.

By Lord Help Us

February 13, 2007 03:39 PM | Link to this

Mike,

Can you help me find out the Democrats that were insisting that Saddam was behind 9/11, those aluminum tubes were for enriching uranium, that Saddam was trying to buy uranium ore in Niger, that those pilotless drones were for spreading chem/bio weapons and that those helium producing labs were, in fact, mobile bio weapons factories?

Thanks in advance.

By Paul

February 13, 2007 03:40 PM | Link to this

G’day, UberGoldie 12:54

Just popped in after lunch, then I must go again, but I saw your:

{{Liberals should love Pres Bush (federal spending is up, up, up!).}}

{{G’day uberPaul— you’re wrong again, mate. Liberals love a balanced budget, pay-as-you-go kinda system — which is foreign to the Neo-cons who’ve taken over the Repugnant Party. They don’t “tax ‘n spend”— they prefer to “charge ‘n spend”, creating a horrible mess for America!}}

Hopefully you recognized from the prior posts that was written in that undecipherable, obscure style known as tongue-in-cheek humor! But I gotta peg your age as really early 20s with a view from life or perfessers that Democrats love constrained spending, balanced budgets, etc. Pres Johnson’s “Great Society” led to a huge spending surge - entitlements - take from one and give to others - all of which did some very good things, but hasn’t changed “poverty” rates much at all (wonder why giving people stuff doesn’t change much?). Pres Clinton was a bit of an aberration - southern roots, maybe?

So to wrap it up before I punch out - one of the most fascinating turnarounds in a short time is Republicans identified as irresponsible freespenders (which they were, which is why they were trounced in the midterms) and Dems as fiscal conservatives.

I’ll predict it’s gonna cause problems, though, if they capture the White House and people finally get a clue of the price tage for all the new transfers. Aren’t enough “rich” people in this country to pay for it - and hardly anyone wants to pay their own way - heck, lots of people want someone else to pay for babysitting for their kids.

Huge: good plug at 12:05 on Libertarians. I’d changed my registration after the party platform got more rigid and doctrinaire than some of the posters here. Maybe there’s new leadership - I’ll have to checkit out.

See you this evening - (symbolically, UberGold - it’s just an expression)

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 03:40 PM | Link to this

Mrs. Godzilla - I did not see the PowerPoint presentation but I will. Thanks for the heads up.

By Anti Radical

February 13, 2007 03:42 PM | Link to this

By Liberals Suck and Lie February 13, 2007 03:18 PM Spammie: So how long did it take you to come up with that “gem?”

Why thank ya Suck, I’ll take that as a compliment. I learned everything I know about bloggin from a fella name of Andy. Give him my regards if ya see him and let im know his student is a carryin on his tradition. While your at it tell im thanks for the pointers.

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 03:42 PM | Link to this

Have a good evening everyone - I’m outa here.

By Paul

February 13, 2007 03:44 PM | Link to this

Huge 1:29

Couldn’t resist scanning the rest of the comments before I left. Remember Agnew’s “Silent Majority?” I had a bumper sticker (got kinda nervous in a very conservative part of southern Cal) -

“The Majority is Not Silent. The Government is Deaf.”

Bye -

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 03:45 PM | Link to this

Muffin idiot, no one said regime change was easy. Or necessary. That is why Clinton (and Bush Sr., for that matter) did not do it: they knew what would happen. And what would happen? Exactly what did happen. Except Shrub & Co. were too dumb or too arrogant to face reality. Iraq was never a threat to America, so Clinton figured hey, maybe we should not waste our time, money, clout, lives and energy taking out a country that’s not a threat. And he was right. Shrub’s policies keep vindicating Clinton over and over again.

By nuff-said

February 13, 2007 03:50 PM | Link to this

The single greatest crime against America, the Troops and the American People is the willingness of George W. Bush to lie. He has lied us into war. We are a nation betrayed and dishonored. I pray, God, we survive the next 22 months. The awkward right-wing mentality craves war and death. Whack-Job republicans desperately yearn for American troops at war; not their own kids, mind you; but troops at war to validate their paranoia. Bush needs the lie.

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 04:03 PM | Link to this

“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 Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.” - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 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. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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

Damn that lying Texas governor George W. Bush duping those people like that!! Do you moonbats ever think through the implication of saying you were tricked by the dumbest man on the planet. I guess that makes him second dumbest.

By Brad

February 13, 2007 04:06 PM | Link to this

Enjoyed all of the chatter about Barry Goldwater today. You libs really break me up convincing yourselves that Goldwater was a liberal-LOL! I do remember that the 1964 election was one of the few times you guys were right. You said that if I voted for Barry Goldwater that we would bomb North Vietnam - I did and we did.

By The Watcher

February 13, 2007 04:07 PM | Link to this

The dumbest of the dumb would be he who still follows…eh RW?

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 04:11 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Stalk, no dice. First of all, just because someone is dumb does not mean he’s incapable of lying. Look in mirror, for instance.

Second of all, it wasn’t the Shrub who fooled the American people, it was his administration. His handlers (like Rove) did it, he just regurgitated whatever he was told to.

Third of all, a lot of us were not fooled. Many of us were against the war from the beginning, and have been since dramatically vindicated.

By IN THE NEWS

February 13, 2007 04:12 PM | Link to this

The U.S. military believes the television show 24 — which has become a foreign policy guide for the right — is sending inappropriate messages to the troops condoning torture:

The United States Military Academy at West Point yesterday confirmed that Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan recently travelled to California to meet producers of the show, broadcast on the Fox channel. He told them that promoting illegal behaviour in the series - apparently hugely popular among the US military - was having a damaging effect on young troops.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 04:12 PM | Link to this

Watch the Idiot Parade:

I.

By Blackadder

February 13, 2007 03:27 PM | Link to this

{{{BD - the difference is, and correct me if I’m wrong (I’m sure you will regardless), that Huge seems to do it defensively (usually in response to you or someone like you) and you do it offensively. Usually in response to an opinion someone has.}}}

Typical lib - you blame his bad behavior on me. Read Huge. Read MarkAss. Read “Liz”. Read my comments. It’s all here.

II.

Watcher,

If I may quote you, you hypocritical jackass (yep, I said it! I called you the mascot of the Dem Party, by golly!):

{{{…But you, a lying, bigoted, ignorant, short sighted, dip stick who regular wallows up to her wrinkled little pigeon neck in the worst of it around here - to get all “hoity toity” on us - takes away all your street cred.}}}

Nice.

III.

rushncap,

{{{Iraq was never a threat to America, so Clinton figured hey, maybe we should not waste our time, money, clout, lives and energy taking out a country that’s not a threat. And he was right. Shrub’s policies keep vindicating Clinton over and over again.}}}

rushncap child,

Iraq was never a threat??? Then what were those Democrats talking about^^^^?

The fact is that Regime change was not the official policy of Bush I, but it was Clinton’s OFFICIAL POLICY. If he didn’t intend to do it, then what was the point? More BS from the master?

I can’t believe that you claim to know more about history and politics than I do.

You’re delusional.

Later losers…

By The Watcher

February 13, 2007 04:14 PM | Link to this

AND

if you follow too closely

it’ll end up a greek tragedy

the kind it takes a crowbar to deal with.

By Lord Help Us

February 13, 2007 04:15 PM | Link to this

Yea, it’s awful RW-(the obfuscator)…

I mean, can you imagine if, following 9/11, we had concentrated on Afghanistan and Al Qaeda with the resources we have squandered in Iraq? (you know, a course of action that a vast majority of Americans and the world would support??)

That would be terrible, huh?

What have we gained from the war in Iraq?

Why are our soldiers dying to help solidify a gov’t aligned with Moqtada al Sadr and Iran?

The sad part is (as mentioned by someone earlier today) that if a Democrat had pursued this exact course the fruitcakes would be calling for their heads…

It must suck to be such a superficial sycophant…

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 04:21 PM | Link to this

Been smacked around too much, Muffin? Time to go cry? Fair enough.

Iraq was never a threat. I am right. When we invaded I was proved right. Iraq never threatened America. If you can’t face reality, that’s not my problem.

Even if “regime change” was Clinton’s official stance, he did not persue it because he knew that it would result in a clusterf&%#. He was a smart man. Far smarter than Bush, who managed to get us into that clusterf&%#, and now has no idea what to do about it. And Americans keep dying. My “official policy” is that I’d like to go out with Natalie Portman. But I don’t fly to Hollywood (or wherever she lives) and camp out at her house, because that would make nothing better and everything worse. Bush’s “regime change” has made EVERYTHING worse. So yes, he’s a retard.

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 04:22 PM | Link to this

The Watcher That Does Not See,

I think the Iraq war is and was the right thing to do, but I believe we have hamstrung the military with some overly political decisions here at home and President Bush is directly responsible for any of that.

Bottom line is that wars aren’t TV shows, there were no lies, and we are currently putting a serious beat down on Al Qaeda in Iraq. The surge plan is a great measuring stick of what progress we’ve made training the Iraqi forces and I was heartened to see that part of it will include shutting down the Iranian border.

All in all there’s potentially a lot more good than bad.

By N-GA

February 13, 2007 04:24 PM | Link to this

Blivet,

You guessed wrong, but you’re “right”. I dislike paying excessive taxes. But the administration should not have rushed those tax cuts into law until they figured out how to pay for them. GWB’s tax cuts were RECKLESS!!

When an American family has a sudden loss of income, they are expected to tighten their belts and live frugally. But the government does just the opposite…it spends wildly, then tells you it is the best way to trigger the economy. LMAO…economics still believes you either pay me now or pay me later. Remember the HUGE pork-laden highway bill that included the bridge to nowhere as well as dozens of projects not remotely related to roads or highways.

One more little thing, Blivet. You give the Republican-controlled Clinton-Era Congress credit for balancing the budget, then turn around and blame Clinton for cutting Defense spending.

Don’t you think you are contradicting yourself? Blivet?

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 04:26 PM | Link to this

Dmitry,

Those quotes are from 1998 I repeat 1998. WTF does “shrub” or his administration have to with them?

Maybe you need to spend a few minutes at one of your porn sites so you can get your concentration back.

By The Watcher

February 13, 2007 04:29 PM | Link to this

Bi Danish

With every word, you become more ridiculous. I have faith that you will become more ridiculous as time goes by.

I don’t care what words you use, or me for that matter….

this all started because HYPOCRITE that you are, you complained about other peoples language. Offensive you said.

Offensive, you do it so well. Course, it don’t really offend me….i like your salty sailer talk!

Keep on with your nasty talk. Could you be a little Butch Danish?

Do you think we missed that?

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 04:29 PM | Link to this

LHU,

Why do you want our troops slaughtered in the Hindu Kush mountains on a largely symbolic manhunt?

Quit hatin’ on the troops!!

By N-GA

February 13, 2007 04:29 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I enjoy your reasoned debate (and astute commentary). But you did surprise me with your knowledge of 1998 Amarone. I would think that Amarone is a wine not found in most US homes, and the 1998 vintage was amazing.

BTW…try going to Brown Derby for selection, availability, and value.

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 04:34 PM | Link to this

Stalk, once again — did Clinton invade Iraq? Yes or no? Was Clinton stupid enough to invade it? Did the Congress (controlled by your Republicans, I might add) pressure him to invade Iraq? Yes or no?

You really are better at stalking people than at discussing politics. You should stick to that, Stalk.

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 04:37 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

There is all time record high tax receipts flowing into the Federal coffers, so as much as I’m inclined to agree with you that spending is out of control, it’s a false comparison to say that it’s the same as a family having a sudden loss of income.

When Clinton’s tax hike bubble, that was kept inflated during the technology boom, finally burst leaving the country in a recession President Bush took office and fixed it. Now the pie is growing like gangbusters and raising taxes would be the single worst decision that could be made for the health of the economy.

By getalife

February 13, 2007 04:39 PM | Link to this

[[[[largely symbolic manhunt?]]]

OMG, RW wants Osama Been Forgotten to get away with attacking and killing thousands of Americans.

Just like w.

Pathetic.

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 04:40 PM | Link to this

Dmitry,

Clinton lobbed a few missiles at Iraq the same way he went after Bin Laden. We saw how well that worked out on September 11, 2001.

By the way, b!tching about the war is not really discussing politics.

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 04:45 PM | Link to this

Yes, of course RW considers finding a man responsible for 3,000 American deaths “symbolic”. He does not give a damn about America, that’s pretty clear. He cares about his agenda. Finding that murderer currently does not fit his agenda, so he does not care.

By LuckoDull

February 13, 2007 04:45 PM | Link to this

By rushncrap February 13, 2007 04:21 PM Bush’s “regime change” has made EVERYTHING worse.

Better being a country ruled by a dictator that butchered a million of his people, made war on his neighbors, exported terrorism throughout the world, manufactured and deployed WMD, ran rape ro, er, rape rooms, umm, now I know why rushncap thinks the old Iraq was better, he likes seeing women getting raped, I get it, never mind.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 04:45 PM | Link to this

getalfe,

Osama isn’t forgotten, hell Ted Kennedy thinks he’s running for President, he just doesn’t mean much in hiding and he is most definitely not worth sending troops to a certain death to get him in the one area of the world where we would be at a militaristic disadvantage.

I thought you guys liked the word “containment” for these kinds of things. OBL is quite contained.

By LuckoDull

February 13, 2007 04:50 PM | Link to this

“It helps her because we know Bill Clinton and we love Bill Clinton. We know him and his foibles. We know he loves his Dunkin’ Donuts; we know his love for burgers,” said State Representative Patricia M. McMahon, a longtime ally of both Clintons.

I have no doubt that Bill Clinton probably squirts when he eats a Dunkin Donut, knowing what a pig that man really is.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 04:53 PM | Link to this

Yes, Clinton lobbed a few missiles. That’s not a quite a full scale invasion with an open-ended occupation, now is it? And Clinton did far more to get bin Laden than Bush did before 9/11. But Bush knew better than to indulge in Clinton’s silly obsession with bin Laden when he came into office, didn’t he?

By the way, b!tching about porn isn’t discussing politics either. But, as I said, you really should stick to stalking. You’re much better at that than anything else.

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 04:55 PM | Link to this

Funny how containment for someone like Saddam — who never attacked America — was never an option. But for OBL — who killed 3,000 + Americans on our own soil — that’s a splendid idea.

Stalk, do you EVER question a single decision Bush has made?

By getalife

February 13, 2007 04:56 PM | Link to this

RW,

Yes, lets leave him out there to attack us again and send more to die in the Iraq civil war.

Insane.

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 04:57 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

What would my agenda be?

I know that yours is to coddle those responsible because you’ve told us right here on these pages how sweet we should be to the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who currently resides at Club Gitmo.

By Lord Help Us

February 13, 2007 04:58 PM | Link to this

RW-(the obfuscator),

I remember when Clinton ‘lobbed a few missiles at Iraq’ and I seem to recall outrage on the part of the fruitcakes (Fox, hannity, rush, the GOP majority congress).

I sure don’t remember demands for more military action.

Can you please provide some evidence of all the calls for more military action directed toward Afghanistan or Iraq prior to 9/11?

Thanks in advance…

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 05:04 PM | Link to this

Lying again, Stalk? How very fitting. Tell us all where I said anything about being sweet to KSM. I won’t hold my breath (unless you’re nearby).

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 05:06 PM | Link to this

Dmitry,

I’m not the one that claimed to be discussing politics. You really need to do something for that concentration problem of yours, but I don’t think the porn breaks are working for you.

Billy Jeff didn’t do a damn thing to get Bin Laden, in fact he overtly passed up several chances. Are you really that gullible that you would believe his revisionism, especially after he had Sandy Berger stealing and destroying classified documents detailing his actions?

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 05:11 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

If you can’t see the difference between cutting harmful social programs like welfare and other discretionary spending, and cutting our national defense, then I can’t help you. It does illustrate a difference between conservatives and Liberals though. If Blow Blowhard is reading, take note.

Bush’s tax cuts were not RECKLESS!!! They were sound fiscal policy that were absolutely necessary after a recession and 9/11.

Jackass Watcher,

{{{Keep on with your nasty talk. Could you be a little Butch Danish?}}

What “nasty talk”????? Please share. I am talking about disgusting sewer talk and you’re complaining about “Dumbass” and “jackass”????

Get a freaking clue.

rushncap,

Carl Rove???? Clinton did far more to get bin Laden than Bush did before 9/11?

You are making a complete fool of yourself with your historically incorrect and nonsensical theories.

Do you really think that if we had Bin Laden we could just pack up our bags and go home? There was a time when that would have worked, before he became emboldened by the lack of response on our part, but not now. Nice fairy tale though.

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 05:13 PM | Link to this

Is there a particular reason you’re obsessed with porn, RW? Still having trouble getting it up? Sigh….

By Lord Help Us

February 13, 2007 05:13 PM | Link to this

RW-(the obfuscator),

In your 5:06 bowel movement you seemed to be concerned with the actions taken to ‘get Bin laden.’

Can you please identify the actions of the Bush admin before and after 9/11 to ‘get Bin Laden.’

Thanks in advance…

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 05:18 PM | Link to this

{{{{Can you please provide some evidence of all the calls for more military action directed toward Afghanistan or Iraq prior to 9/11?}}}}

LHU,

Here! Letters to Bill Clinton demanding military action against Hussein!

By Grammy Talk

February 13, 2007 05:18 PM | Link to this

If the Dixie Chicks dont (have a) fit, then W musta’ quit!

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 05:18 PM | Link to this

Muffin, since your last post made no sense (did you take a break to take down a bottle of Jack?) I don’t feel like I need to response.

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 05:20 PM | Link to this

LHU-child,

Try to keep up this time, in 1998 it was Democrats demanding more action against Iraq. Conservatives generally didn’t believe in nation building and in many cases didn’t believe in meddling in places like Kosovo, Bosnia, or Iraq. By the way, we really were lied to about the first two, but I digress.

Anyway, 9/11 came along and we saw how dangerous it was to allow a potential threat to fully develop. Now we all know that would never have been the case with Kosovo or Bosnia, but it was quite true of Iraq.

Now I don’t really fit that conservative mold because I was supportive of Clinton’s wars of choice and on balance feel like we did more good than harm even though he lied us into them.

Got it?

Dmitry,

Are you familiar with poetic license? I’m sure there isn’t a post available where you said to “be sweet to KSM”, but I bet there’s a bunch of them with you whining about treatment at Gitmo and CIA black sites.

By RW-(the original)

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

{{{{By rushncap 06/19/2006 12:34 AM}}} Scroll Down

Third of all, I would argue that porn is beneficial. Yes, I said it. It can be beneficial. I have experienced that in my own life. And it’s beneficial to me for 2 reasons. One is that the fact that I was able to resist having sex with quite a few girls whom I did not like or was interested in. The fact that I had access to porn made me able to reject the appealing notion of having sex with a girl I was not interested in, in favor of a far more benign mode of release — porn. After all, the hormones are working, no matter what. I would argue that choosing porn, in this case, is obviously the lesser of 2 evils. The second reason is that it has increased my productivity. There are times when I have been, for lack of a better term, horny, when a quick visit to an appropriate site dealt with the problem rapidly, and I was able to resume doing what I was doing. I have, on occasion, not had the chance to access any porn, and that lead to basically a wasted hour or hours, as I tried hard to concentrate on work while the mind relentlessly drifted in all the wrong directions.

They’re your words wanker boy.

By Gypsy

February 13, 2007 05:28 PM | Link to this

LHU,

And if you don’t like it, RW is more than agreeable to post some more cut and paste inane and insane nonsense.

By Lord Help Us

February 13, 2007 05:29 PM | Link to this

Awesome BD!

Here’s the stunner from YOUR OWN LINK:

{{‘including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites.’}}

That’s exactly what he did!!!!!

Thanks for the link!

Now, isn’t this te action that you and the other fruitcakes mock constantly??

Man, you have got to be the the dumbest person I have ever lowered myself to converse with…(Oops, forgot Lucko-stuckonstupid and RW the obfuscator)

I haven’t laughed this hard since I was a little girl (with apologies to Dr. Evil…)

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 05:30 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

What a pathetic dodge. It didn’t make sense? Maybe because I was regurgitating your nonsensical theories, like Karl Rove did it?

Here is an excellent recap of Democrats on Saddam Hussein from Snopes.com. It even has Madeline Albright’s quotes from town meetings in it.

LHU,

That’s for you too^^^^.

By Gypsy

February 13, 2007 05:33 PM | Link to this

what point does that 5:25 serve, other than RW is completely stupid?

By Lord Help Us

February 13, 2007 05:35 PM | Link to this

Stop it!!!!

You are KILLING me!!!

RW-(the obfuscator)…are you actually saying, {{‘Now I don’t really fit that conservative mold because I was SUPPORTIVE of Clinton’s wars of choice and on balance feel like we did more good than harm even though he lied us into them.}}????

Tell me the ‘harm’ that came out of our actions in Kosovo?? And, (I can hardly contain myself) ‘supportive?’ Even though, ‘he lied?’

I’d like another laugh when I compare that to the current situation in Iraq.

Also, please provide some evidence of Clinton’s ‘lies’ about Kosovo.

Thanks in advance…

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 05:38 PM | Link to this

LHU,

That really worked now didn’t it?! Yep, stopped Saddam right in his tracks./sarc.

I know, it’s the intentions that count for liberals, not the results. Clinton tried! He cares! But then along came 9/11 and we couldn’t rely on weak volleys anymore.

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 05:39 PM | Link to this

I love it when you dance, RW. So easy to pull your strings. I knew you were gonna post that. Thanks.

Gypsy — I think RW believes he’s embarrassing me. He’s a deluded little monkey, that one.

P.S. Stalk, I know you’re too dumb to see the difference between “be sweet to” and “follow the Geneva Convention that our country signed”, but most others on this board (Muffin, Dusty, li’l andy being notable exceptions) are not.

By Lord Help Us

February 13, 2007 05:46 PM | Link to this

BD,

Fat, Drunk and Stupid is no way to go through life…

Now, tell me, if Clinton’s actions DID NOT work…what WMD’s did we find in Iraq????

Perhaps the missile strikes did the job?

Ooh, this should be good….

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 05:47 PM | Link to this

Idiot LHU,

Note the date on this quote and others from the same period from the Snopes link^^^

{{{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. “[W]ithout 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 has 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.}}}

Darn if those pitiful little missile launches that Clinton volleyed didn’t work.

By nuff-said

February 13, 2007 05:47 PM | Link to this

Some of you are delusional. Iraq is “potentially good”!?! We have been there longer than WWII! Death is “potentially good” since we will all rise from the dead on Judgment Day!

By LuckoDull

February 13, 2007 05:49 PM | Link to this

There are times when I have been, for lack of a better term, horny, when a quick visit to an appropriate site dealt with the problem rapidly, and I was able to resume doing what I was doing. I have, on occasion,

rushncrap: You’re not pulling on it now, are you? That would be really odd.

Hahahahahahaha.

RW: Doggie picture porn possibly?

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 05:50 PM | Link to this

We’re winning. It’s great and I’m proud. Activate the Cub Scouts and send em to Iran.

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 05:51 PM | Link to this

Dmitry,

Good for you proud wnanker boy.

LHU-child,

I keep forgetting how slow you are, maybe you should get some advice from Dmitry on how to improve your concentration.

I was supportive of the Kosovo and Bosnia wars of choice and I didn’t know that we had been lied to at the time. After I found out we had been lied to I looked at it and thought we had done more good than harm. I’m sure you don’t think any of the innocent people killed by bombing from 50,000 feet were harmed, because you only have a new found love for innocent Iraqis. The Chinese Embassy was harmed a little too, but I like to think that one was on purpose.

By Dusty

February 13, 2007 05:53 PM | Link to this

Can RW come out and play?

By Gypsy

February 13, 2007 05:53 PM | Link to this

{{{{I know, it’s the intentions that count for liberals, not the results.}}}}}

now you understand. brilliant.

Bush’s intentions were dishonorable, and his performance stinks just as much.

By LuckoDull

February 13, 2007 05:55 PM | Link to this

I just love doggie picture porn.

bow wow.

where’s my bone?

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 05:56 PM | Link to this

LuckoDull,

I read that Ingi moved away so it may well be. Wouldn’t you hate to be that wanker’s employer or worse a coworker?

If anybody meets Dmitry remember not to shake hands.

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 05:56 PM | Link to this

No Muffin, your post did not make sense. It was not coherent. I have no desire to try to figure out what you think you meant when you typed it. Sorry. I’m not gonna do your work for you. If you cannot communicate well in this language that’s not my problem.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

February 13, 2007 05:57 PM | Link to this

LHU,

Re the “harm” in Kosovo - Ever hear about the carpet bombings from 50,000 feet? How about partnering with the KLA? Do you even have a single fact at your disposal?

Are you aware of this?

{{Among the most troubling aspects of the Clinton Administration’s effective alliance with the KLA are numerous reports from reputable unofficial sources — including the highly respected Jane’s publications — that the KLA is closely involved with:

The extensive Albanian crime network that extends throughout Europe and into North America, including allegations that a major portion of the KLA finances are derived from that network, mainly proceeds from drug trafficking; and

Terrorist organizations motivated by the ideology of radical Islam, including assets of Iran and of the notorious Osama bin-Ladin — who has vowed a global terrorist war against Americans and American interests.}}

Iran. Bin Laden. Sound familiar? Same old same old problems that go back to at least 1979 that we’ve had to deal with, but you all want to blame Bush (or Carl Rove!) for it.

Time to grow up children.

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 05:59 PM | Link to this

nuff-said,

So we left Japan and Germany on VJ and VE days respectively? There’s a new nugget of brilliance from you moonbats every day.

By Lord Help Us

February 13, 2007 05:59 PM | Link to this

RW-(the obfuscator),

You STILL didn’t tell me what the Clinton’s ‘lies’ about Kosovo were!!

Did you think I wouldn’t notice?

I haven’t had a good belly laugh like this in a while…thanks!!!

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 13, 2007 06:00 PM | Link to this

Gypsy Rose Lee,

Agree or disagree with him, Bush is an honorable man and all the slime in the world that you throw at him won’t change that fact.

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 06:04 PM | Link to this

Beating retreat again, Stalk? Hot damn!

By LuckoDull

February 13, 2007 06:05 PM | Link to this

Damn, even kooks can have enlightened moments:

Too often when a candidate throws his hat into the ring, he tosses principle out the window. Yet this is precisely what we want in a president — principles and the courage to stick to them. Instead of Clinton saying she had been misled by Bush and his merry band of fibbers, exaggerators and hallucinators, I’d like to hear an explanation of how she thinks she went wrong and what she learned from it. I don’t want to know how Bush failed her. I want to know how she failed her country.-Richard Cohen, WaPo

Yeah, like that pathological liar could even form those words in her dishonest two faced mouth.

I’d bet that she’d rather sleep with her “husband” Bill than admit she was wrong.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Lord Help Us

February 13, 2007 06:08 PM | Link to this

BD,

You need to talk to RW-(the obfuscator) because he says he supported the war in Kosovo. Maybe he can answer your concerns…

Otherwise, can I conclude that you did not support the war in Kosovo?

You did not support the troops?!?!?!

You hate America?!?!?

The irony is KILLING me!!!

Thanks again…I have a stitch in my side from this ‘debate.’

By LuckoDull

February 13, 2007 06:17 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish gets crazier with each post.

Yes, Bush is an honorable man.

So is the Tooth Fairy.

Plus, they also gain supporters by bribing them.

How much did you earn today? Did the Tooth Fairy leave you a wooden nickel under your pillow?

Me? Throw slime?

I wouldn’t want to horn into your act. You’re just so good at it.

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 06:18 PM | Link to this

Dmitry,

I wouldn’t use the word “beating” if I were you.

LHU,

The lies were the mass graves that weren’t. Clinton told us there were hundreds of thousands being slaughtered and there weren’t. It’s quite possible they would have been so it was a lie to get us into a preemptive war of choice.

It’s ridiculous for you to run from Buy Danish and try to hide behind me. I said I think that on balance we did more good than harm. It’s not by a wide margin though and her information has closed that gap considerably when we’ve discussed this in the past.

I wish you guys would put your bongs away so you could remember conversations as they develop over the months.

By Grammy Talk

February 13, 2007 06:19 PM | Link to this

If the Dixie Chicks dont (have a) fit, then W musta’ quit!

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 13, 2007 06:20 PM | Link to this

LHU,

Rumors to the contrary, RW and I are not the same person.

The carpet bombing is a symptom of the Clinton’s approach to War. No boots on the ground because LHU will shriek if actually starts to look like a real war.

I do not think it was a good idea to form an alliance with the KLA, but the larger point is that all these conflicts are connected - try as you might to stick them in an isolated Bush box.

Time to grow up Peter Pan.

By Lord Help Us

February 13, 2007 06:22 PM | Link to this

RW-(the obfuscator),

I’d like to see some evidence of your claims, if you would be so kind…

Thanks in advance…

By Grammy Talk

February 13, 2007 06:26 PM | Link to this

The market is poised for a super spring rally.

Love the way the Iraqi prime minister kept giving his speech unabated during the terrorist attacks in a nearby market. Those people are tough! That indicates that Iraq is going to be okay. If you cant get a guy to stop talking with a suicide bomb blast, then you’re pretty insignificant. The speech that saved a country. Just by talking through an attack. It’s like those movies where the entire saloon breaks out in fisticuffs, yet one guy at the bar keeps drinking and paying no mind.

Iraq won a big victory yesterday. The mouth is mightier than the Bomb.

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 06:31 PM | Link to this

Stalk — going back to 2nd grade humor? You’re a sad little old man. I’m starting to genuinely feel pity for you. Good luck.

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 06:31 PM | Link to this

LHU,

Not even you can be stupid enough to have missed Clinton saying there were hundreds of thousands being put into mass graves via an ethnic cleansing and if you think we found these hundreds of thousands of dead bodies it’s incumbent on you to provide those details. I can’t show you non-existent bodies.

By nuff-said

February 13, 2007 06:31 PM | Link to this

RW: You cannot seriously compare Iraq with the Axis powers? A gelded Saddam after a blistering defeat by Bush 1 and ten years of sanctions hardly was a threat to anyone. Bush 2 lied to get us into war. This is a dark time in our history. War is a dirty business. It involves the killing of others. Bush kills with lies. What does that say of us?

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 13, 2007 06:32 PM | Link to this

LuckoDull (the original not the pathetic wanker),

Hillary Clinton is the “smartest woman in the world” but she is constantly being deceived by men.

Some Commander in Chief she’d make.

My biggest conundrum at the moment is that I can’t decide between 3 great men who are running - Guiliani, Romney and possibly Gingrich.

It’s an embarrassment of riches.

By Grammy Talk

February 13, 2007 06:35 PM | Link to this

They finally closed the borders in Iraq. Biz will hate that. Wont last long. Depends on the surge. The surge will climax at a point where sunni or shia influence in the parliment connect. There’s alot of shuffling going on behing the scenes right now as the parliament positions themselves for the KO punch that we are focusing on Sadr and Anbar. That will tell us everything we need to know. Will we be stifled or not. Not! That’s the key to the whole war now. Close the borders and really mix it up in those strongholds. Falujah times a thousand.

Gonna get messy in there, but we’re going to root them out. We’ll know by summer, maybe even sooner.

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 06:37 PM | Link to this

Ooooh, please vote for Gingrich! Someone needs to take Kerry’s “most unelectable Presidential candidate ever” mantle.

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 06:39 PM | Link to this

nuff said,

YOU are the one that said we had now been in Iraq longer than WWII. If you can’t even keep up with your own comparisons there’s not much I can do to help you.

Dmitry,

I figured I would keep going down a level until I found one you could communicate on. I guess there isn’t one.

By N-GA

February 13, 2007 06:41 PM | Link to this

Blivet….there is no line item veto!!!!

When the republican Congress approved Clinton’s budget, they approved military expenditures…don’t you get it??

You are utterly hopeless (& useless)

LMAO at your ignorance

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 06:42 PM | Link to this

Considering that you only want to talk about porn, Stalk, you’re right — there is no level I want to communicate with you on. I don’t mind talking about pornography, but you’re clearly not mature enough to handle such a conversation, so no thanks.

By Bush is okay.

February 13, 2007 06:44 PM | Link to this

Bush seems to be wiser and more seasoned lately. He’s finally growing into the office and he seems a stateman. He is a likeable guy, there’s just no question about that. It’s just not funny to make fun of the texan in him.. So what?

Laura is one of the great ones. I think America loves the Bush’s, yet we wont know how much until they’re out of office, when we’ll look back on this as some sort of golden age, like a texas camelot barbeque thing.

The terrorists around the world are quiet….too quiet. A nuke incident is likely. It’s just the only place determined evil can go in this hi tech world. Just hope it goes off prematurely in Iran in the president of Iran’s palace with all his henchmen present. Now that would be a merry christmas. (this message has been decyphered from the coded messages in the morona monologue now appearing on the great white way in downtown balliwood.)

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 06:44 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

That will be great when we get to the primary debates and we have a stage full of intelligent leaders while the Dems are all babbling about who got tricked the worst.

By LuckoDull

February 13, 2007 06:45 PM | Link to this

Danish: Speaking of the “bounty” of democrat candidites:

John Edwards: The son of a textile worker and a postal employee, grew up working class in rural North Carolina. He overcame this humble background to become a primping effete metrosexual millionaire trial lawyer. Perhaps picking leaders based on humble beginnings is not a foolproof system. Dennis Kucinich: The son of an Ohio truck driver and a stay-at-home mom, Kucinich went on to overcome his obvious mental illness and the malnutrition of a vegetarian diet to become the member of Congress voted “most detached from world reality.” Again, perhaps choosing leaders based on humble beginnings is not a foolproof system.

And they have the nerve to call our pickings slim.

They got Bill’s wife, a virtual lump of playdoh and Osama, the clean, empty slate.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By nuff-said

February 13, 2007 06:52 PM | Link to this

Please. The length of one war scarcely compares to its quality. You are the problem.

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 06:52 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

The last thing I want to know about are the porn tastes of someone that lives on a college campus and can’t get laid.

By @@

February 13, 2007 06:54 PM | Link to this

Which GOP candidate? Which one, which one…the ugly one when he announces. DRAT!!!

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 06:59 PM | Link to this

nuff-said,

The war AGAINST Iraq was one of, if not the, the most successful in history.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 13, 2007 07:01 PM | Link to this

GOAT!

What’s your point?

As promised in Clinton’s earlier budget outline, the president’s 1,478-page plan would slash military spending while raising taxes on energy and on the income of top earners.

By rushncap

February 13, 2007 07:06 PM | Link to this

As opposed to someone who lives in a trailer and can’t get it up, Stalk? Stick to pimping Muffin, you’re good at that…

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 07:16 PM | Link to this

Dmitry,

Your crystal ball is as cloudy as Blowhard’s. You have been cleaning it off after your little “productivity” sessions haven’t you, wanker?

By Gypsy

February 13, 2007 07:20 PM | Link to this

why is LuckDull pretending to be me?

Wingers are such losers.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 13, 2007 07:56 PM | Link to this

I’m getting the impression that rushncap is porn dependent.

I wonder how his dates feel about that -

“Just a minute honey, I have a little reading to do.”

“No problem rushie, I know how important concentrating on your education is to you.”

By RW-(the original)

February 13, 2007 08:09 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Maybe rushncap is a masochist and since he gets his butt kicked every time he comes over here, the scribblers blog is one of his porn sites. So that means he’s wanking the whole time he’s here.

Frankly since he blogs 23 hours a day and takes porn breaks I’m pretty sure there is no girl, job, or education.