Mike Luckovich

By LuckoDull

March 13, 2007 7:54 AM | Link to this

“The president recalls hearing complaints about election fraud not being vigorously prosecuted and believes he may have informally mentioned it to the attorney general during a brief discussion on other Department of Justice matters,” Perino said, adding that the conversation would have taken place in October 2006. “At no time did any White Hose officials, including the president, direct the Department of Justice to take specific action against any individual U.S. attorney,” Perino said.-http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258425,00.html

Has anybody heard a pinko ask the question about what voter fraud has not been prosecuted?

Isn’t that really the underlying issue?

So who was getting paid off to turn their heads?

So let’s open that can of worms, what do you say?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Blackadder

March 13, 2007 8:05 AM | Link to this

I couldn’t have said it better myself

By Buy Danish

March 13, 2007 8:12 AM | Link to this

LuckoDull,

Right you are.

It’s amusing that the party that thrives on Diebold conspiracies has no interest in the topic.

My advice to the Bush White House is to go ahead and fire any prosecutors that may be remaining who are holdovers from the previous administration.

Time to level the playing field according to Clintonista game rules.

By jacksonwolff

March 13, 2007 8:15 AM | Link to this

LD- are you saying that the next president should do the same?

what if it ends up being the former president?(hillary)

By jacksonwolff

March 13, 2007 8:17 AM | Link to this

LD- are you saying that the next president should do the same?

what if it ends up being the former president?(hillary)

By Old Fuddy Duddy

March 13, 2007 8:25 AM | Link to this

Folks, this is an issue of Presidential prerogative - he has the right to appoint people to federal office if they are not low to mid-level civil service. He can remove them for any reason he sees fit. Today is the anniversary (139) of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson for violation of the Tenure of Office Act. He was acquitted by the Senate, the law was later found unconstitutional and repealed. If you don’t like the prerogative, then change the constitution. Until then, do not complain. The reasons that the president - through the Attorney General - has done this are clear, except these reasons are not being clearly reported in any medium of the press.

Clinton did the same thing, firing 93 prosecutors. Most administrations replace all prosecutors within a year of taking office. Bush did not do that. Maybe he should have, but that is not the issue here. Replacing eight prosecutors is nothing compared to the abuses of the Justice Department under Clinton. End of story.

By Mrs. Godzilla

March 13, 2007 8:36 AM | Link to this

The unprecented mid-term mass firing of positively reviewed U.S. Prosecuters smacks of cronyism at the very least.

At its worst it is a PNAC inspired attempt at manipulating the judicial system in this country.

We know about the inappropriate and possibly illegal pressure applied to this group. Domenici has already lawyered up - chosing Duke Cunningham’s attorney. He knows rouble is coming. And so it should.

My biggest concern is not the 8 who would not cave in to the arm twisting, but those who may have.

Are there sitting prosecuters who rather than do their proscribed jobs did instead the partisan political bidding of this administration?

How many “BROWNIES” are sitting behind U.S. Prosecuters’ desks?

Except for our extreme right wing comrades, are any of us truly surprised?

Peace.

P.S. Ok, release the attack dogs now.

By Buy Danish

March 13, 2007 8:36 AM | Link to this

I am going to be out all morning. If anyone posts under my name, or any variation thereof, it is an idiot namejacker.

I left one message for Stalker Boy at the dead thread.

Later…

By curtrob

March 13, 2007 8:37 AM | Link to this

OFD, says Clinton did it too…end of story.

By jacksonwolff

March 13, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

OFD- if “most administrations replace all prosecutors within a year of taking office,” then what “abuses of the Justice Department” were commited under Clinton. Personaly I think that the Pres. has every right to fire the people who work for him if they are not doing the job. I really don’t have an opinion on this one.

If the Pres. wants to fire prosecutors that work for his Justice Department, the should have that right.

By RW-(the original)

March 13, 2007 8:41 AM | Link to this

Mrs. G,

Are you saying you don’t want voter fraud prosecuted if it aids Democrats?

My oh my….

jacksonwolff,

If Hillary got elected she would fire them all on day one and we wouldn’t hear a peep out of you. IMHO

By gadem

March 13, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this

Oh RW, are you all dizzy from all the spinning that is going on? By the way, how is the Ebay business going?

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this

FROM TPM

The very short version of this story is that Republicans habitually make claims about voter fraud. But the charges are almost invariably bogus. And in most if not every case the claims are little more than stalking horses for voter suppression efforts. That may sound like a blanket charge. But I’ve reported on and written about this issue at great length. And there’s simply no denying the truth of it. So this becomes a critical backdrop to understanding what happened in some of these cases. Why didn’t the prosecutors pursue indictments when GOP operatives started yakking about voter fraud? Almost certainly because there just wasn’t any evidence for it.

By Jesus

March 13, 2007 8:56 AM | Link to this

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

By Old Fuddy Duddy

March 13, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this

RW - I agree. Said the same thing when Clinton fired the 93 in 93. He had the right. The press did not create a major stink. And Godzilla, firing eight (ccho, huit, wyth) is not a mass firing!

By candid

March 13, 2007 8:58 AM | Link to this

Since a majority of Americans know that Bush is a fool, and an arrogant one at that, the fact that Republicans still strongly support him would indicate that Republicans are either fools or knaves. Or both.

By rushncap

March 13, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

Stalk, are you saying it’s ok to toss out separation of powers if it aids Republicans? My oh my…

By Old Fuddy Duddy

March 13, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

Candid - since most Republicans earn above the average income and are college educated and most Democrats are “common” people, the poor and only marginally educated, except for the wise liberal elite, then most upper-middle class or rich, well educated people, white, black, brown, yellow or red, must simply bee fools and knaves. On second thought they are really just evil, malificent, selfish, greedy, self-centered (I’m running out of adjectives here) jerks who can get millions to vote for them by surreptitious means.

By the way, I never hear Democrats complain about voter fraud in places like Chicago where it is admittedly routine!

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this

As Senators start to pile on our lamentable Attorney General for presiding over Karl Rove’s politicization of the US Attorneys Office — an offense known as ‘obstruction of justice’ — I would like to direct your attention to a similar but somehow forgotten scandal.

Everyone seems to have forgotten that then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales also presided over one of the more sordid aspects of the Plame scandal. When Gonzales first learned that the Justice Department had started an official investigation into the Plame leak, Gonzales waited twelve hours before putting the White House staff on notice that they had to preserve documents and electronic files. Which seemed than — and seems now — like an open invitation to “shredding and deleting,” not to mention getting your story straight. In short, obstruction of justice.

And it’s not as if Gonzales dithered trying to make up his mind what to do. He told White House Chief of Staff Andy Card about the investigation right away — many hours before sending the official notification to preserve all evidence.

[..]Lest you think this is much ado about nothing, consider that when Patrick Fitzgerald came looking, key emails to or from the Vice President’s office mysteriously could not be found in the White House computer system’s archives.

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

\ ONE DOWN

HPW MANY TO GO?

WHOS FIRST TO RESIGN? CHENEY, ROVE OR GONZO?

Fast-Riser’s High Hopes and Sudden Fall (Gonzo’s chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson resigns)

By Old Fuddy Duddy

March 13, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this

IN THE NEWS - Lamentable Attorney Gneral? You mean in the fine tradition of Robert Kennedy, Ramsey Clark, Benjamin Civiletti and the oh so well qualified Janet Reno? Waiting twelve hours is “obstruction of justice”, while hiding documents for years is just an “oversight”. You liberals just love to pick and chose your outrages!

By @@

March 13, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this

So what I can gather from all the liberals here today, is that the “victimhood status” is exclusively theirs.

The “one” thing THEY WON’T share.

Very attractive on you liberals. Not too productive though.

Still suffering from the 2000 elections where “voter fraud” was the left-wing’s war cry. Couldn’t accept the reality that the courts ruled that there was no evidence of such fraud.

You liberals are hilarious and sad at the same time.

By jacksonwolff

March 13, 2007 9:21 AM | Link to this

RW- you are absolutley right, you wouldn’t here a peep from me because I don’t think bush did anything wrong.

Please check my 8:35 post.

btw… call me simple but what does IMHO stand for?

By Old Fuddy Duddy

March 13, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this

@@ - you are right again. Remember that the Miami Herald did their own recount and found no fraud either. I have read said rag, and believe me, it is no bastion of conservatism or even moderation. Yes, victimhood usually is the sole possession of the liberals, and other radicals or fringe groups who want to find ways to excuse outrageous and unfounded paranoid beliefs!

By Truthman

March 13, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

Ha, Ha!

The ball ain’t in W’s court anymore!!

Have you ever seen a more irrelevant president? We’re more than a year-and-a-half from the elections, and that’s all mainstream media talks about. Anything W or Cheney say is met with a role of the eyes and a shrug of the shoulders.

It shows that the policy Speaker Nancy Pelosi laid out on “60 Minutes” has come to fruition. When asked if she wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney, she said, “No, I just want to stop them.”

Yea, Nancy!!

Let the grumblebunnies attack!!

By RW-(the original)

March 13, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

rushncap,

This one intrigues me. Please explain how a President firing people that serve at the pleasure of the President and are in fact Presidential appointees violates any separation of powers clause. Thank you in advance.

gadem,

Do you bring anything to the discussion this morning or are you challenging stalker boy OV for the most misguided fantasy profile of your fellow bloggers award?

By the way, when I have items I no longer want or need and they still have any value to others I donate them to charity. If I had your meager earning capacity I might well try to scrape together a few extra dollars and deprive the less fortunate, so I don’t really blame you. It’s not like you have the opportunity to improve your lot in life with you being a Democrat and all. Hang in there, though, the one thing the Dems might actually pull off is that minimum wage increase. I’ll try to dig deep on your behalf for my next donation.

By Old Fuddy Duddy

March 13, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this

Truthman - Yeah, Bush is irrelevant now - just like Clinton 1995-2001, right? I think not. There is something called the U.S. Constitution which calls for separation of powers or more popularly, checks and balances. The Senate is only 50-49 Democrat with one Democrat AWOL with brain problems. The Republicans also have around 200 seats in the House. The President has his veto pen and foreign policy powers granted by theaforementioned constitution. I hate to burst your bubble, but you needed the civics lesson.

By RW-(the original)

March 13, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

jacksonwolff,

Your 8:35 posted long after I had submitted my comment as a response to your 8:15.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but you’ve got to try to work around this insipid posting delay here.

By @@

March 13, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

OFD:

There are two main reasons I no longer vote Democrat…

Too much negativity in campaigning.

The elites manipulation of their voting base.

They’re either playing the victims or creating the victims.

Kinda like Prince Charming and Cinderella. But wait……

That’s ^^^ a “fairy-tale” isn’t it?

Ralph Nader made a comment once. If I can find it, I’ll drop it off here.

By RW-(the original)

March 13, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

jacksonwolff-In My Humble Opinion

I’m out of here, this server is worse than ever this morning.

ml, Tell your webmonster that the Commodore 64 ain’t cutting it anymore.

By JNH

March 13, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this

“Abuse of Justice Dept. under Clinton” huh?? If this comment was not so pathetic, I’d choke! The “abuse” during Clinton’s administration consisted of spending millions of taxpayer dollars to investigate a ‘lie’ about a little ooh laa laa with a consenting adult. What a waste!

By Cindy

March 13, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!! Get them home!

New York Times March 13, 2007 Pg. 1 War And Liquor A Perilous Mix For U.S. Troops By Paul Von Zielbauer

The use of alcohol and drugs in war zones appears to reflect a broader trend toward heavier and more frequent drinking among all military personnel, but especially in the Army and Marine Corps, the two services doing most of the fighting, Pentagon officials and military health experts said. A Pentagon health study released in January, for instance, found that the rate of binge drinking in the Army shot up by 30 percent from 2002 to 2005, and “may signal an increasing pattern of heavy alcohol use in the Army.” While average rates of alcohol consumption in the Navy and Air Force have steadily declined since 1980, the year the military’s health survey began, they have significantly increased in the Army and Marine Corps and exceed civilian rates, the Pentagon study showed. For the first time since 1985, more than a quarter of all Army members surveyed said they regularly drink heavily, defined as having five or more drinks at one sitting. The rate of illicit drug use also increased among military members in 2005, to an estimated 5 percent, nearly double the rate measured in 1998, a trend that the study called “cause for concern.” The study also found other health problems in the military, from the growing popularity of chewing tobacco to a 20 percent increase during the past decade in service members who are considered overweight. Lynn Pahland, a director in the Pentagon’s Health Affairs office, said the rising rates of heavy drinking and illegal drug use among active-duty military personnel are particularly troubling inside the Defense Department. “It is very serious,” Ms. Pahland said in an interview. “It is a huge concern.” In the military, seeking help for psychological problems, including alcohol and drug abuse, is considered a taboo, especially among officers competing for promotions. Several officers interviewed for this article said the Pentagon was not doing enough to reduce that stigma. “I think the real story here is in the suicide and stress, and the drinking is just a symptom of it,” said Charles P. O’Brien, a psychiatrist at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine who served as a Navy doctor during the Vietnam War. There is a high incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder among Iraq veterans, he said, adding that “there’s been a lot of suicide in the active-duty servicemen.”<

By @@

March 13, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this

OFD:

Here ya’ go. Ralph Nader on “attitude”.

“Pessimism has no function.” “Discouragement is an intellectual indulgence.”

I’ve never voted for the guy, but I’m always happy to see him run.

By N-GA

March 13, 2007 9:55 AM | Link to this

OFD,

About your comment that a Democratic Senator is “AWOL” with “brain problems”, I wonder how you would phrase that if it were your son who had the condition.

Would you say he was “AWOL” from school or work? Would you refer to his illness as a “brain problem”?

…or are you simply an uncaring a*******hole with no compassion or empathy?

@@ - about the “negative campaigning” remark…did you vote for Saxby Chambliss (he’s the draft avoider who called Max Cleland, a real war hero, soft on terrorism)? That campaign commercial aired ad nauseum for weeks. Saxby later expressed remorse over that commercial saying it was wrong. Of course, the election was long over. I just want to know how closely you stick to your own guidelines.

(my apologies if you, in fact, voted for Max)

By N-GA

March 13, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

This response time is unacceptable…gone for a while

By IN THE NEWS

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

OK, there’s a lot to sift through in the two stories out from The Washington Post and New York Times today, but let’s just focus on the tick-tock of events outlined in the two stories.

So here’s the storyline (and please save your expressions of disbelief until the end):

The idea to replace U.S. attorneys was first floated by White House counsel Harriet Miers in February 2005. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales “rejected that idea as impractical and disruptive.” And Karl Rove “vaguely recalls telling Miers that he also thought firing all 93 was ill-advised.”

So in March 2005, a counselor to Gonzales, Kyle Sampson (who went on to become Gonzales’ chief of staff in September 2005) sent an e-mail to Miers that ranked all 93 U.S. attorneys. Here’s how the Post describes the breakdown:

Strong performers “exhibited loyalty” to the administration; low performers were “weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.” A third group merited no opinion. The Post doesn’t mention it, but in December 2005, the administration, via Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter’s (R-PA) chief counsel, slipped a provision into the Patriot Act reauthorization bill that made it possible to replace U.S. Attorneys permanently without Senate confirmation.

In January 2006, “Sampson sent to the White House the first list of seven candidates for dismissal, including four who were fired at year’s end: [Michigan’s Margaret] Chiara, [Arkansas’ Bud] Cummins, [San Diego’s Carol] Lam and [San Francisco’s Kevin] Ryan. The list also recommended Griffin and other replacements, most of whom were edited from documents viewed by The Post.”

In March, the Patriot reauthorization bill finally passed Congress and was signed into law.

In June, U.S. Attorney for Arkansas’ Eastern District Bud Cummins gets a call asking him to resign.

In August, “Justice officials” discuss “bypassing the two Democratic senators in Arkansas, who normally would have had input into the appointment.” The way to bypass them, of course, would be to use the Patriot Act provision.

In September, Sampson put together another list of candidates, totaling nine. Cummins, he said, was “in the process of being pushed out.”

By Old Fuddy Duddy

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

N-GA - I am sorry if you found my remark flippant. It was not meant to be. It was an oversight as my own mother died of the exact same ailment. I have nothing but sympathy for Senator Johnson and his family. I also think that it would only be ethical for him to resign. I said the same thing about Senator Mundt from SD in the early 1970s when he continued in office although incapacitated and unable to attend sessions, committee meetings or even vote. The Republicans at least had the decency to strip him of all committee duties.

By BuyDanish'sJohn

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

Thanks for agreeing to meet me at the Motel 6 this morning instead of your trailer Buy Danish. And thanks for giving me more time than you normally do. And thanks for the utter and sheer exitement that I feel each and every time you sell me your toothless pleasure. It is truly the eighth wonder of the world.

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

HAS ANYONE MENTIONED THAT PART OF THE PURGE STORY IS THAT BECAUSE OF A LINE IN THE PATRIOT ACT - REPLACEMENTS APPOINTED DO NOT HAVE TO GO THRU CONGRESSIONAL VETTING?

BUSH COULD APPOINT A MONKEY IF HE WANTED TO>

By JNH

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

Mr. Duddy, your 9:09 a.m. posting stated that most Democrats are common people, who by your definition are “poor and marginally educated.” You are sooo wrong. The rich, elite R’s are in the minority of the Republican party. They manipulate and brainwash the “majority” of the Republican party (the poor, marginally educated, racist, religious nuts). This is accomplished by misuse of the pulpit and racist bigotry. These poor souls are too uneducated to think for themselves, research etc. Otherwise, they would know the Republican party does not look after the interest of the “common people” such as themselves!

By Old Fuddy Duddy

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

Cindy - drug use and alcohol abuse was rampant during the Civil War. Morphine addiction was a huge problem. Many officers, including U.S. Grant were hopeless alcoholics. The problem was also rampant in the trenches in WWI and in World War II as well. The drug problem in Korea was also terrible. Many friends, acquaintences and relatives in Vietnam became heroine addicts or alcoholics. This is common in every war among almost all soldiers on any side. War is a messy, ugly business which it is not exaggerated to say is at best “unpleasant”. In bad situations people often turn to mind-altering or mind-numbing substances to forget or at least ease the pain. I don’t think that if we eventually win the war people will say that we should not have fought it because some of the soldiers succumbed to human weaknesses. I certainly have never heard anyone say that about the Civil War or the World Wars.

By Cindy

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

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!! Put the money where it is truly needed for their health and safety?

Chicago Tribune March 13, 2007 Veterans Fight The War Within Study finds post-traumatic stress disorder diagnoses are on the rise By Jeremy Manier and Judith Graham, Tribune staff reporters A study of more than 100,000 veterans who have sought medical care since returning from war shows that nearly one-quarter have mental health problems. Half of those—more than 13,000 people—were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder according to the report to be published Tuesday in the Archives of Internal Medicine. The disorder affects less than 4 percent of the general public. The unpredictable aspects of combat in Iraq seem to take a mental toll similar to what Vietnam soldiers experienced, said Dr. Chirag Raval, a psychiatrist in the Army Reserves who served in Iraq and is medical director for the mental health intensive case management program at the Hines Veterans Hospital. “There is no front line to this war,” Raval said. With hand-propelled rockets, mortars and improvised explosive device attacks “there is no true safe place in Iraq. You can be anywhere, even on your base, and still not be safe.” More than a generation after 15 percent of Vietnam vets returned with post-traumatic stress disorder, the illness generally carries less of a stigma and has better-defined standards of treatment. But many veterans and researchers say the shame of mental illness persists in military ranks, and soldiers often avoid reporting their symptoms in hopes of preserving their careers. Meanwhile, significant barriers remain for soldiers who seek psychological care after they return from service, according to several recent studies and congressional hearings. On military bases there are shortages of psychologists and psychiatrists and long waits for appointments. Relatively few military mental health professionals have been trained in recommended post-traumatic stress disorder treatments. And when evidence points to the disorder, only 22 percent of soldiers get referrals, a report by the Government Accountability Office found last year.

By @@

March 13, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

N-GA:

Are you talking about the “four-framed” Max?

Max Cleland, Liberal Victim

I voted for Saxby with no regrets.

Max Cleland was all too eager to support John Kerry. A liberal elitist whom I CANNOT stand. Not then, not now, not ever. He’s a Ted Kennedy protege.

Liberals attack our serving military daily here. Politicians who are veterans should promote themselves on their political records, not their military records.

In my opinion, no veteran worth his salt would ever mix the two during campaigning. If it means that much to them, and it should…never exploit it for politics.

By Old Fuddy Duddy

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

JNH - you are confusing sarcasm with a statement of fact. You, in fact, prove my point about liberal elitists. You think that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow a fanatic, stupid or worse. The name-calling and put downs of the left are both tiresome and trite. You prove that you cannot counter an argument with facts, so straight out of Homer you kill the messenger.

The fact remains that almost every Democrat I talk to - and I am in daily contact with same - tells me that Republicans are only rich, selfish people. The fact remains that when serveyed, a large plurality of college graduates are Republicans. A large plurality of those with higher incomes are Republicans. Your tendency to call them stupid or worse is contradicted by the facts.

It is also a fact that my liberal elitist friend think that it is the government’s duty to make all difficult decisions for those of us unfortunate enough not to be smart enough to do so for ourselves. Then they contradict themselves by saying that conservatives want to enslave the masses when in fact they just want to be left alone to persue happiness on their own.

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

GOOD CHRISTIANS!

“The National Association of Evangelicals has endorsed an anti-torture statement saying the United States has crossed ‘boundaries of what is legally and morally permissible‘ in its treatment of detainees and war prisoners in the fight against terror.”

By Truthsayer

March 13, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Thi is the latest headline:

Scientists to Gore: Cool It!Several experts on climate change question former vice president’s assertions in Oscar-winning ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

HALIBUTON MOVING TO DUBAI…

DOES DUBAI HAVE AN EXTRADITION TREATY WITH THE US?

By Political Foreskin

March 13, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

W and the loose ball foul - double drivel in Iraq: the march to madness!

The final 16 straws!!!

Nothing but nets…internets that is.

Here’s what none of you pundits can grasp about current events: the Iraq war is a smoldering heat source for global sunni-shia civil war. How long before it ignites? By hanging around and keeping the flames lit, we are assuring a muslim war fought in every country including our own.

The fact is that there already are incidents of shia-sunni clashes right here in the usa.

In the lead up to the iraq war, many pundits said that there was no difference between shia and sunni worth fighting over. That they knew they were muslims and that’s all that mattered. That’s who Bush listened to.

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

POLL: Americans Overwhelmingly Believe President Bush Should Not Pardon Libby As Atrios first noted, a new CNN poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly believe that President Bush should not pardon Scooter Libby, who was convicted last week on felony charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

By mountain man

March 13, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

Did you note on Niteline last night that the Mayans felt it necessary to rid themselves of the negative karma that had been placed on the ancient Mayans ruins after the visit of our president. One of them made the comment that “I ain’t seen such negative energy round here since Hernando Cortez laid waste to the place 400 years ago.”

By Mrs. Godzilla

March 13, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

I may very well still screw up the linky thingie (I admit to being un-geekish) but this is a must see.

budget history

By getalife

March 13, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

Bush On Collapsing:

“The Ugliest Part Was My Dear Friend From Las Vegas (A Male Friend) Was Giving Me Mouth-To-Mouth”

By Old Fuddy Duddy

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

mountain man - have you read a history book lately or stopped by the History Channel. This whole farce is really funny. The Mayan religion (and the Aztecs, Incas, Nazca, Moche etc…) was largely based on wholesale warfare and human sacrifice of the captives! The people exercising this “exorcism” surely must be addle pated, uninformed or worse. This is not a good example.

By getalife

March 13, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

Cleland to Cheney: “Where the hell were you in the Vietnam War?”

Nice working bashing a vet @@.

Saxby is a w-w******* and he should lose.

Max’s major smackdown on cheney was just beautiful.

By N-GA

March 13, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

@@,

Kerry wasn’t in the picture when Saxby ran against Cleland. And the article you reference is just another hatchet job of the NRO. The article points out that Cleland voted 11 times against the “Patriot Act”. His vote was against hiring employees (TSA, etc.) without classifying them as federal employees with the same benefits as other federal employees. Now we have a federal group under a cabinet-level official managing a huge budget and employees that don’t even share the same benefits as their fellow workers.

But you voted for a person who worked hard to avoid military service.

Thank you for admitting your hypocrisy.

By JNH

March 13, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

Oh Mr. Duddy, please accept my humble apology for confusing sarcasm with fact. And of course you didn’t mean for your remark regarding the ‘brain problem’ of the senator to be flippant! Heaven forbid! I’m sure you are a very compassionate conservative! (smile). Oh yes, the democrats should ‘do the right’ thing and encourage his resignation. Pleaase! I’m sure Senator Strom Thurmond was alert as a 20 year old when he was being wheeled in to vote. Don’t give me a eulogy on Strom. Most of usinformed, educated liberals have already done our research, and continue to keep up with events on a daily basis. Bye now. I have things to do today!

By @@

March 13, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

Mrs. Godzilla:

Are you a member of the “Unitarian Universal” church; the source for your budget link?

Not a problem here, unlike the problem you have exhibited for the rest of us who follow an alternative spiritual path. You know….Protestant, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. etc. etc.

I’m off to work.

By Blackadder

March 13, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

Excellent link Mrs. Godzilla. I’ve seen that before but I’ll bet not all who post here have seen it. It’s a real eye-opener.

By getalife

March 13, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

Well, we know why Newt came clean on his affair.

The madame in Washington has released her client’s names to the media.

Look for many to beg for forgiveness.

By Old Fuddy Duddy

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

JNH - your sarcasm too, is unappreciated, although I can see it. Ole Strom was no more or less addle-pated than his drunken colleague Fritz Hollings and certainly no less of a nut than your much lauded KKK Byrd, the King of Pork! As an octogenarian I take offense when age is the sole issue, but with these guys, there was so much more. Johnson, in his sixties, is no different. He, in fact, is worse. He is presently incapacitated and may or may not recover. I remember all of the calls for Mundt’s resignation from Republicans and Democrats. I have never heard those calls from Democrats on this one or with aged and infirm Senators like Carl Hayden who was completely senile and in his dotage when he left in 1969. His biography is on Wikipedia if you would like to read it.

I’m just presenting you with the facts. I will not resort to the name-calling and petty inuendos of some on this blog. Please keep it civil and clean.

By Mrs. Godzilla

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

@@

nope, I like the UUC, but they cannot claim me as a member

glad you checked the source, good for you! keep it up.

By Goldie

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

{{I have nothing but sympathy for Senator Johnson and his family. I also think that it would only be ethical for him to resign.}}

Fuddy, just curious— did you also think that Strom Thurmond should have been “ethical” and resign his seat from Congress about 10 years prior to his demise, because he was incapacitated most of that time?

Also, using the terms “Republicans” and “decency” in the same sentence is an automatic oxymoron! :>)

By jacksonwolff

March 13, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

I need to pull out my hip-boots, it’s gettin deep in here today.

By Mrs. Godzilla

March 13, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

BLACKADDER

I have seen the numbers before but some folks just need a graphic.

By the way, the ultimate source of this may have been the UUC, but it’s not where I got it.

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

\ HES GOING DOWN

Gonzales Lied Under Oath, Said All Bush-Appointed Attorneys Would Be ‘Senate-Confirmed’

By Tuesday Funny

March 13, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

A little risque humor. Look closely.

By Old Fuddy Duddy

March 13, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

Goldie - read my post which appeared at 11:11. I did not say whether or not Strom should have resigned. Probably. But the other examples are there as well. I would like you to defend the one’s on your side. I bet those examples, too, are indefensable.

By Old Fuddy Duddy

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

Goldie - again, you liberals resort to name-calling and inuendo when you cannot defend a position. I know many Democrats who are quite decent people. I know many who are just plain sorry. I can say the same about Republicans. Painting with a broad brush is intellectually dihonest and really make you sound like a shrew or a harpy.

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

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

-=-

LOL -

Now I’m sure this will get the NeoCons talking -

I just saw a “Support Our Troops” ribbon on a SUV with the slogan written in Arabic’.

Just a reminder that we have many American Muslim’s in this country too!

Thomas/PNAC

By Old Fuddy Duddy

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

Please excuse the plethora of typos today. I need to watch what I am doing. Multi-tasking is not my thing!

By Tuesday Funny

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

A little risque humor. Look closely.

By Goldie

March 13, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

James Dobson is trying to get his evangelicals in lock-step with his own views regarding protecting the earth’s environment, and his efforts so far have failed:

Cizik himself is smart enough to seize the moment and position himself as a martyr. “It’s time we return to being people known for our love and care of the earth and our fellow human beings,” he wrote in remarks he planned to give at the NAE board meeting last week. Score one for the tree hugger.

Who knows— maybe some evangelicals will come to be known for their love and care “of our fellow human beings.”

By JNH

March 13, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

Mr. Duddy, I’m making one last comment today, regarding your 11:11 AM plea that I keep it ‘clean and civil.’ If you will read my comments, you will note they are totally clean and civil. As an informed liberal and a dedicated Christain, I will never post the nasty. However, if you choose to call the truth nasty, so be it.

By Republican Credibility

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

REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

Republican do-nothings never do a damn thing they say they will. They bleet a good sheep, but when it comes time to walk the walk they always come up LAME!

By Blackadder

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

FOX is complaining that liberals are afraid to go on FOX, but at the same time they claim that FOX isn’t a conservative network. Well, then why would liberals be afraid to go on FOX when they go on every other network?

FOX News has no liberal shows at all, while they have a slew of conservative shows. That’s fair and balanced? Every single FOX News show is hosted by a conservative, and only one FOX News show has a token liberal as co-host. How is that “fair and balanced”? Of course it’s not. Fair and balanced is, if you’re going to have partisan hosts at all, having equal numbers of shows that skew right and left, OR having each show represented by a right host and a left host. In FOX’s case, every single show has a conservative host, and only one show has a liberal co-host.

FOX got caught in the media hen house, and it’s no longer being treated as real media. It’s nothing more than the propaganda arm of the far-right of the Republican party. Just remember folks, FOX has been telling the nation for 4 years that the war in Iraq is actually going really well, but that the mainstream media is lying to you. Now ask yourself how the war is really going, and then ask yourself why FOX told you otherwise.

By Old Fuddy Duddy

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

JNH - I was making a general plea and not referring necessarily to you. I just wanted to make the point that folks don’t have to get nasty to reply. I’m glad you’re a dedicated Christian. I’m one too, or at least try to be most of time.

By gadem

March 13, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

@@, last time I checked most if not all Republicans are elitist.

By jacksonwolff

March 13, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

OFD- I have to commend you for you civility. Most of what I have seen on this board are people attacking each other as “stupid”,”lame”,”idotic”etc…

We cannot get anything done if all we do is insult one another. If you disagree with me, tell me why and present your arguement. All insluts do is make you look weak-minded.

By Goldie

March 13, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

{{Yes, victimhood usually is the sole possession of the liberals}}

Fuddy, you may want to follow your own advice and not paint such “broad strokes” with your insults here day after day…

By LuckoDull

March 13, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

MINNEAPOLIS - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.-http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/aponsc/polartrek1

Didn’t these idiots know they could huddle around the oil pipeline with the caribou to keep warm?

WTF? Scientists my as-s.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Blackadder

March 13, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

OFD - 9:09:

Candid - since most Republicans earn above the average income and are college educated and most Democrats are “common” people, the poor and only marginally educated, except for the wise liberal elite, then most upper-middle class or rich, well educated people, white, black, brown, yellow or red, must simply bee fools and knaves. On second thought they are really just evil, malificent, selfish, greedy, self-centered (I’m running out of adjectives here) jerks who can get millions to vote for them by surreptitious means.

OFD - 11:23:

Painting with a broad brush is intellectually dihonest and really make you sound like a shrew or a harpy.

By Walt

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

“Many officers, including U.S. Grant were hopeless alcoholics.”

Grant was not a hopeless alcoholic. My Goodness gracious.

Walt

By Mrs. Godzilla

March 13, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

Blackadder

I don’t see why Fox MEDIA (I won’t use news any longer) doesn’t just come out and tell the truth.

In the long run, wouldn’t they benefit from saying that they are conservative?

By Magneto

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

ATTENTION EVERYONE:

I am Magneto,master of magnetism. In case you missed it yesterday, I single handedly outed Buy Danish as @@. I told her that I would come on this blog every day this week and remind all of you, so be reminded.

By Old Fuddy Duddy

March 13, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Godzilla - likewise, wouldn’t CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, NPR, PBS and ABC benefit from admitting that they are to the left of Hugo Chavez? How about the AJC, the NY Times, the LA Times, the Boston Globe etc….? Again, you are a bunch of hypocrites on this issue.

By rushncap

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

Stalk — there is a difference between what a person CAN do and what a good person WOULD do. Is firing a prosecutor who serves at President’s pleasure legal? Sure. Is that a right thing to do because of (apparently) lack of deference to political pressure? Even someone with no morals like yourself should know an answer to that one. Let’s put it this way: if Clinton tried that, you’d have him crucified, drawn, pilloried and decapitated (in your crap-as-s right wing blog universe). You would claim that he is trying to interfere with the workings of the judicial branch. And for once in your life you would be right.

By Magneto

March 13, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

@@ says at 11:04 that she’s gone to work. Yeah right! She knows when I’m going to appear and has sat back and waited for some time know so that she can reappear as Buy Danish thinking that we don’t know. Isn’t it strange that all of a sudden Buy Danish has not appeared today? Could it be that she is embarassed and does not know how to handle the master of magnetism?

By Mrs. Godzilla

March 13, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

Mr. Duddy

You are right that the other media outlets have a responsibility for disclosure.

Not every body understands that these outlets are owned by Disney, Viacom, GE, et al. These large corporations most certainly have an agenda. I believe their agenda is pro big business, you may disagree.

While I scan all of them and more daily I understand where their truth comes from and from that point I find what I feel to be the ultimate truth.

I assume you do the same thing. Review your sources, check them and then determine your ultimate truth.

I also assume that it is part of your ultimate truth that Fox media is fair and balanced. I find that amazing.

“left of Hugo Chavez” - Wow. I think that statement is way right of the unibomber.

I won’t, as you so recently did me, lump you in a pile o’ hypocrites.

I wish do to as you say, “that folks don’t have to get nasty to reply”

Peace

By Buy Danish (the first)

March 13, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

Magneto, the Master of Magnetism,

Please leave me alone. Its bad enough that you busted me, now your rubbing it in. I haven’t done anything to you so please allow me the time to get over this situation that you’ve exposed.

By Blackadder

March 13, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

Mrs. Godzilla - there was once a time when FOX could have admitted to being blatantly conservative. That time has passed. In order to survive they must still try to fool some of the people all of the time.

Saying you’re “fair and balanced” doesn’t make it so. Have you seen Robert Greenwald’s Outfoxed yet?

By Little Right of Center

March 13, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

Hey MountainMan, most of the civilized world gave up that hocus pocus karma crap years ago. So your 10:41 comment is about as relevant as all the other BS that you liberals post.

By Goldie

March 13, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

{{All insluts do is make you look weak-minded.}}

Yes, jackson— “insluts” are a big problem here, especially coming from the rightwing loonies who don’t splell worth a hoot!

By jacksonwolff

March 13, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

OHH PLEASE,

hell, if I wanted this much drama, I’d go down to the local gay bar and listen to the drag queens duke it out.

Magneto, stop name-jacking. We get your point.

By LuckoDull

March 13, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

The only constituency House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ignored in her plan for amending President Bush’s supplemental war funding bill are the people of the country that U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize. The Democratic proposal doesn’t attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn’t hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year — a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government’s weakness. It doesn’t explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world’s second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al-Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201198.html

Like they even care.

Puh-leeze.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

As has happened so many times in the last six years, the maximal version of this story — which seemed logical six weeks ago but which I couldn’t get myself to believe — turns out to be true. Indeed, it’s worse. We now know that Gonzales, McNulty and Moschella each lied to Congress. We know that the purge was a plan that began at the White House — and it was overseen by two of President Bush’s closest lieutenants in Washington — Miers and Gonzales. Sampson is the second resignation. There will certainly be more.

By LuckoDull

March 13, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

For those of you that can’t keep track, which would be most of you candy a-ss pinkos:

By Buy Danish March 13, 2007 8:36 AM I am going to be out all morning. If anyone posts under my name, or any variation thereof, it is an idiot namejacker.

Pis-s off, wanker.

Go fondle yourself.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By IN THE NEWS

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

Are you sitting down? The Specter staffer who inserted the clause into the Patriot Act giving the president new power to by-pass the Senate in appointing U.S. Attorneys … was rewarded by becoming a U.S Attorney!

By Blackadder

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

OFD - off the top of my head I can name a conservative host on one of the channels you listed. Lou Dobbs. I know there are more. How many FOX shows are hosted solely by a liberal? Even if Lou Dobbs is the only example I ever come up with that’s still more than FOX.

By Scooter

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

@@, Cleland got his Senate Seat handed to him because he supported unionizing the Department of Homeland Security. After all, you don’t professionalize unless you federalize, right? Drip, drip, drip.

Liberty requires responsibility and that is why Americans are handing over their liberties by the bucket full.

Also, anytime somebody says “unprecedented”, or “of all time”, etc… you know to call BS.

As to the cartoon…

By Goldie

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

Dear Webmaster— yesterday I started getting the following message when trying to post to this blog:

“Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage”

Can you (or anyone else here on the blog) tell me how I can avoid getting this message? My posts seem to be getting through, but I keep getting this message… thanks!

By Magneto

March 13, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

I’m getting the same message. I have noticed that my posts appear faster than normal, but I can’t go to another section of the paper while I’m waiting.

By Blackadder

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

A little-noticed provision slipped into the Patriot Act in 2005 allows Bush to appoint “interim” U.S. attorneys for an indefinite period of time, without Senate confirmation. On Jan. 18, AG Alberto Gonzales assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that the administration never intended to take advantage of it:

GONZALES: “And so let me publicly sort of preempt perhaps a question you’re going to ask me, and that is: I am fully committed, as the administration’s fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.” …

But in mid-December, an e-mail by Gonzales’s chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday), showed that the Justice Department clearly intended to skirt the Senate altogether and use the Patriot Act provision to appoint U.S. attorneys that would serve until the end of Bush’s term.

By Goldie

March 13, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

I find it just hilarious how many times some of you whine about the “uncivil” discourse here on the blog, and you fail to take responsibility for the times that you yourself are UNCIVIL. What goes around…

What is that good Jesus quote where he speaks of being unable to see for the piece of wood in thine own eye???

By Walt

March 13, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

“GONZALES: “And so let me publicly sort of preempt perhaps a question you’re going to ask me, and that is: I am fully committed, as the administration’s fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.” …

But in mid-December, an e-mail by Gonzales’s chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday), showed that the Justice Department clearly intended to skirt the Senate altogether and use the Patriot Act provision to appoint U.S. attorneys that would serve until the end of Bush’s term.”

COME ON DEMOCRATS!!!

IMPEACH —SOMEBODY—!!!!

Walt

By Old Fuddy Duddy

March 13, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

Godzilla - you may or may not believe this but big corporations tend to be big government. They like regulation because it leads to less innovation and less competition. Besides, Disney is a Hollywood outfit run by rich hypocrites like David Geffin et.al. Yes, Fox is fairer and more balanced than the rest, which isn’t saying all that much, but at least their commentators - e.g. Britt Hume or Mort Kondracke - tell folks up front what their views are.

Tim Russert, Bryan Williams, Perkie Katie Couric et… all make a laughable pretense at being “fair”. Walter Cronkite was the most blatantly hypocritical about it. Jim Lehrer is an absolute leftist who won’t admit it. CNN is devoid of any conservatives of any kind of stature. MSNBC’s lineup gets better as the night goes on, but no one watches it! The reporting of the NY Times is so biased as to be unbelievable. The same can be said for most major newspapers.

The proof is in the pudding though. When the left admits that it is the left and becomes open about it, then they lose readership/listeners/viewers. The best example of this failure to appeal to a mass audience is Air America. I listened to it for quite a while. It was not only poor entertainment and bad radio, but sarcasm has to have a grain of truth to be effective. And Al Franken just was not funny.

Again, the hypocrisy is palpable. Criticize and be honest about all of the sources. Books have been written on this stuff, but the best is by Goldberg.

By Blackadder

March 13, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

One thing I’ve noticed is when I click Post and it says Please Wait I immediately reload the page. Otherwise the Please Wait takes forever.

I switched to FireFox over a year ago and haven’t had any of the Internet Exploder problems I used to experience.

By Goldie

March 13, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

{{Again, the hypocrisy is palpable.}}

Fuddy— oh so true, especially what’s being posted by you and the other Bush-kissers here.

By Magneto

March 13, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

Blackadder,

When I reload, I end up posting twice. How do you do that without reposting the same message?

By Blackadder

March 13, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

OFD - just when I think you can’t be any more absurd you outdo yourself yet again.

By Blackadder

March 13, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this

Magneto - are you using Internet Exploder? That might explain it.

By Steve

March 13, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

The Mayans are on the right track. Purifying the area after Bush has visited it. Ancient wisdom prevails.

By Mrs. Godzilla

March 13, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

Mr. Duddy

You called me a hypocrite shortly after calling for us to keep it clean. If you are a gentleman, you will apologize. Dare I hold my breath?

I know I and the vast majority of citizens of the United States of America - both “common” and the “elite” will never be able to change how you see things. One fuddy duddy more or less is no skin off my nose!

Still I wish you peace.

By getalife

March 13, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

Dang old man, you are an idiot.

Franken is running for Senator.

It is corporate ran media in a corporate ran government.

Geez.

Gonazales is having a press conference. He should resign or be impeached. We were a nation of laws.

By Blackadder

March 13, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this

TOUCHE

By Goldie

March 13, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this

I found what Jesus had to say about judging others (from book of Matthew):

“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

And because it’s taking too damn long to post here today, I’ll also give y’all a fabulous quote from Stephen Colbert about the so-called liberal media:

“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

Colbert’s da man!

By Brian Curtis

March 13, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this

The entire PURPOSE of Faux News is not to present the conservative spin, so much as it is to discredit the very notion of journalism.

You can tell from the comments of Faux News fans and apologists. At no time do they even pretend that what their network does is legitimate reporting—obviously such a claim would be ridiculous.

Instead, when their blatant partisanship and propaganda are pointed out, they launch into their rehearsed speech of “Sure—but so are all the other news outlets! THEY just won’t admit it! THEY’RE hypocrites! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

It’s a pretty thin disguise, and I think only true Bushdrones and Limbots bother to believe and chant the slogans any more.

By Mrs. Godzilla

March 13, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

I think I’m really going to like Mark Green.

By WashingtonState

March 13, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

Fuddy Duddy,

This falls under old business. You left before I could reply to your post to me last week. You misunderstood me. I didn’t say that the head of the RNC SHOULD apologize for the Southern Strategy used by Nixon and his succesors in order to win over the South. I said he DID apologize for it. That other spokesperson for the modern Republican, Rush Limbaugh, waxed poetic about this episode.. Notice the tasteful use of metaphor.

By Lord Doom

March 13, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

What does Jesus say about having split personalities Midori?

By Magneto

March 13, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

Thanks Blackadder,

I was wondering whether you were a conservative or not. I can see by your helpfulness that your not.

By getalife

March 13, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

“And it’s not enough that the Attorney General is a glorified water boy for the White House. The Bush administration also is admitting now that its #1 political HACK, Karl Rove passed along complaints from Republican lawmakers about US attorney’s to the Justice Department and the White House counsel’s office. A political advisor—playing a role in the hiring and firing of US attorney’s. It’s disgraceful.” — Jack Cafferty, who added, “Look up ‘weasel’ in the dictionary and you see a picture of Gonzales,”

Geez.

By RW-(the original)

March 13, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Just passing through, but I noticed you never addressed what separation of powers was being violated. Are you retracting that comment? It seems to be what you’re best at.

Clinton fired all 93 AG’s and there wasn’t a peep out of me. Elections have consequences and it was his prerogative.

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this

FROM TIME

Where Credit Is Due Posted by Jay Carney |

Twelve days ago, after David Iglesias went public, I said that if there turned out to be a broad conspiracy behind the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, “I will take my hat off to Marshall and others in the blogosphere and congratulate them for having been right in their suspicions about this story from the beginning.”

My hat is off. Marshall and everyone else out there whose instincts told them there was something deeply wrong and even sinister about the firings, and who dug around and kept writing about them while Iglesias decided whether to talk to the press or go quietly on to his next job, deserve tremendous credit.

When this story first surfaced, I thought the Bush White House and Justice Department were guilty of poorly executed acts of crass political patronage. I called some Democrats on the Hill; they were “concerned”, but this was not a priority. The blogosphere was the engine on this story, pulling the Hill and the MSM along. As the document dump proves, what happened was much worse than I’d first thought. I was wrong. Very nice work, and thanks for holding my feet to the fire.

By Jesus

March 13, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

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

March 13, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

-=-

I just love the Faux/Dubya’/Falwell Kool-aid Zombie’s here.

(No it’s not a new drink!)

They eat all this Faux media madness up just like it was a great football game~! Beer Please!`

Faux is like a continuous running Rush Limbaugh show (without the ditto-head laugh track).

As to another topic, I would never Broad-Brush Republicans (as wealthy) and Democrats (as poor). Seriously - Do you all forget the Right Wing Christian Farmers that put Sonny Boy in office here, and I am pretty sure that liberal Democrat Ted Turner is not all that poor yet. So get over type-casting.

Nor do I blame Bush for everything thats wrong, (although I still think he is definitly Luck-up Industries exec material!~)

No I blame Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld, Podhoretz, Rice, Libby, Kristol, Khalilzad, Abrams, Forbes, Kagan, Armitage, Ikle, Bennett, and the rest of their club for the terrible direction this country has taken. I consider them directly responsible for this mess we as a country are currently in…

Along with their propaganda dissemination cheerleaders in Media, Hannity, O-Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, Novak, and the other spin-parrots.

I just Love the World you right wingers are creating for our future generations. Instead of societies that talk and work out our differences for common goals, you nuts want the eternal Cold War and Eternal conflicts of hate-mongering. Your children will just love that~!~

Cheers to your grand plan for for a continuous running war on Earth!` Haliburton will thank you for their profits..

Thomas/PNAC

By RW-(the original)

March 13, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

Sheppard Smith is a Conservative????

Bill Hemmer is a Conservative?????

Greta Van Sustern is a Conservative?????

Kimberly Guilfoyle is a Conservative??????

and that’s a very partial list.

How far left are you snake?

By WashingtonState

March 13, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

Someone mentioned that Bush was allowed to “clean house” of all the Clinton appointees. Actually, at least one of the fired prosecutors was a Bush appointee. Reminds me of the Supreme Court. All those godless liberal judges appointed by the Republican presidents turned out not to be puppets after all. The solution: replace them with puppets of course!

By LuckoDull

March 13, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

The First Lady’s statements, under oath, were patently false. And indeed, at the end of the investigation, independent counsel Robert Ray determined that “Clinton did play a role and have input in the decision to fire the Travel Office employees and that her testimony to the contrary was factually false.”-http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york061303.asp

Wankers.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

Another gem from the document dump. Less than a month before a Justice Department official told Congress that U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was fired for “performance related” concerns, the Attorney General agreed to be a job reference for the guy.

By Andy

March 13, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

Clinton.

By cynical

March 13, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

Why doesn’t the Republican government just treat all non Christians and everyone who doesn’t agree with Bush or think he’s the Next Coming of Christ as the same way Commie Pinkos were treated? Or even better, why not make them second class citizens, take away the rights to monies or property and put them in Re-Education camps until they believe in the RIGHT way. And of course, because so many voters voted the WRONG way last time, well they obviously aren’t smart enough to vote so the Republican government should just force all voters to take litmus tests and if they’re not Christian they should be forced to convert. If they are Christians but not the RIGHT kind of Christians then they should be put in the Re-Education camp. Last but not least, if they can’t be Re-Educated, instant death penalty. The USA should be a theocracy and those who do not believe in Christ and his messiah Bush should be instantly killed.

And the scary thing is that the people who will definitely agree with all this are the same people who say that Iran’s theocracy is evil, laud the USA’s human rights.

I say, just be honest since the Election will be abolished by Bush eventually anyway.

“The constitution is a myth, it has always been a myth.”

So why don’t all of you who think it’s liberal to have human rights or to have the right to different religions or to not be in lockstep with Bush just be honest, throw the rest of us in deathcamps like Hitler and be done with it.

By rushncap

March 13, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

Stalk, I’m still trying to find a credible report for the “93 Attorneys” statement. So far all I can find is nationalreview and to the right of that. Is there any link to a credible news source on these firings?

By Pinko

March 13, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

Bush

By Goldie

March 13, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this

{{Cheers to your grand plan for for a continuous running war on Earth!` Haliburton will thank you for their profits..}}

Thomas, I’m reminded of a few weeks ago when someone here lamented that there’s way too much “tolerance” in America these days… LMAO!

By Andy

March 13, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

Clenis.

By LuckoDull

March 13, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this

By rushncap March 13, 2007 2:26 PM Stalk, I’m still trying to find a credible report for the “93 Attorneys” statement. So far all I can find is nationalreview and to the right of that. Is there any link to a credible news source on these firings?

rushncrap: No, I’m not “stalk,” but I am wondering, are you trying to deny that Clinton fired 93 Attorney Generals?

And it doesn’t even make you wonder why no left wing media reported on it back then, but now they are going 24/7 apesh-it over what Bush did, which is almost 12 times less than what Clinton did?

You’re a slobbering neanderthal hack (I got an evolution crack in there to make you feel better.)

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

In a press conference this afternoon, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) blasted the Bush administration’s decision to fire Nevada-based U.S. attorney Daniel Bogden. Bogden “was described in his last job performance evaluation in 2003 as being a ‘capable’ leader who was highly regarded by the federal judiciary and investigators. ‘He didn’t get any dings,’ said a Justice Department official with knowledge of the review. ‘The overall evaluation was very positive.’”

Ensign said he was “flabbergasted when [he] first heard….that not a single conversation had been had between” Bogden and the Department of Justice prior to the firing. Ensign said the firing had been “completely mishandled by the U.S. Attorney General.” He added, “A good leader does not just fire someone for no good reason.”

I was flabbergasted when I first heard this. I cannot tell you — I’m not a person who raises his voice very often. My staff could hear the frustration that I expressed to Paul McNulty when he first informed me that not a single conversation had been had between him or any of the previous deputy attorney generals with Dan as far his priorities were concerned.

[…]

The bottom line in all of this is the relieving of duties of Dan Bogden, however you want to describe it, was completely mishandled by the U.S. Attorney General.

[…]

The deputy attorney general — in the conversations that I had — he was either ill-informed about the whole process or [he] intentionally misled. One of the two.

[…]

Everybody who’s appointed by the White House understands that they serve at the pleasure of the President. But that does not mean — a good leader does not just dismiss someone for no good reason, especially if you haven’t done your job in the first place. And I don’t believe the U.S. Attorney General’s office did their job in the first place.

By Pinko

March 13, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

Cheney scares me, brrrrrrrrr!

By Andy

March 13, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

Muslims scare me, whaaaa!

By Andy

March 13, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

Damn straight they do, didn’t you see what they did to the World Trade Center you freaking dumbas-s.

Mouthbreather.

By Buy Danish

March 13, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

I’m back but just for a moment..

rushncap,

Let me help you out here -

Under Janet Reno/criticisms -

Requesting the resignation of every United States Attorney shortly after taking office in March of 1993, prompting accusations of partisanship retribution for investigations of allies of President Clinton

From the NYT, although you’ll have to pay to see the whole article.

ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS -March 24, 1993, Wednesday By DAVID JOHNSTON, (Special to The New York Times); National Desk Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 1, 1053 words DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton. Jay B. Stephens, the …

You’re welcome.

By Buy Danish

March 13, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

I’m back but just for a moment..

rushncap,

Let me help you out here -

Under Janet Reno/criticisms -

Requesting the resignation of every United States Attorney shortly after taking office in March of 1993, prompting accusations of partisanship retribution for investigations of allies of President Clinton

From the NYT, although you’ll have to pay to see the whole article.

ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS -March 24, 1993, Wednesday By DAVID JOHNSTON, (Special to The New York Times); National Desk Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 1, 1053 words DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton. Jay B. Stephens, the …

You’re welcome.

By Buy Danish

March 13, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this

I have no idea why that posted twice^^^^.

By Blackadder

March 13, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this

“It has taken the F.D.A. seven years to issue advice to the produce industry on how to reduce the risk of food poisoning in fresh-cut produce. The industry can choose to follow it or not: compliance is voluntary.”

Your government inaction.

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this

Gonzales Chief Of Staff Rebuts Rove Claim That Clinton Purged Prosecutors Too

At a speech last week in Little Rock, Karl Rove described the Bush administration’s purge of federal prosecutors as “normal and ordinary,” claiming that Clinton did the same thing. “Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys,” Rove said. “When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys — there are some still left from the Clinton era in place. … What happened in this instance, was there were seven done all at once, and people wanted to play politics with it.”

But in an e-mail to Harriet Miers on Jan. 9, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s chief of staff Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday) admitted that the Clinton administration never purged its U.S. attorneys in the middle of their terms, explicitly stating, “In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision”

Former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta previously told ThinkProgress that Rove’s claims that the Clinton administration also purged attorneys is “pure fiction.” He added, “Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution.”

By cynical

March 13, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

All new Administrations get rid of the previous Administration’s US Attorneys and replace them with their own people if the new Administration is of a different party. Clinton did it but so did Reagan. The Bush Administration didn’t do this when they first came into office. What they did instead was create an enemies list and fired everyone who didn’t do what the President ordered. Firing US Attorneys because Democrats won the elections is unconstitutional. Oh wait, I forgot. If a Republican rapes someone, the girl deserved it. If a Democrat rapes someone, castrate them! I forgot the rule of anything a Republican does has a good reason while if a Democrat does the same thing, they’re unpatriotic.

By rushncap

March 13, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

Thank you Muff. I believe that was the wrong thing to do by Clinton / Reno. Then again, they did quite a few foolish things first year or two in office before righting ship and becoming one of the best administrations of the past century.

See, some people are capable of criticizing the wrongs done by their party. You could learn a thing or 2.

By Daniel

March 13, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

As a die-hard bracketologist I love this cartoon!

By LuckoDull

March 13, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

By IN THE PROPAGANDA March 13, 2007 2:57 PM But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution.”

Prop: When you win an election as a democrat, take office and fire all 93 AG’s that served under your Republican opponent, it is NOTHING BUT pure political retribution, you clown.

What the hell else could it be?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Old Fuddy Duddy

March 13, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

Godzilla - the hypocrisy is not on the right, at least not among the bloggers here. We see nothing wrong with the cars we drive nor the houses (no matter how big or how modest) we live in and we make no apologies for our incomes - because we have earned them. You folks however see nothing wrong in preaching to the rest of us while driving around gas-guzzlers with your Kerry-Edwards and F the President stickers, living in huge suburban or Buckhead energy hogging houses and wringing your hands about the poor and feeling guilty about having a large income, yet neglecting to buy a smaller car, house and all that and give the excess income to the poor folks you care so much about because it’s the governments responsibility, not mine. All of that is what makes liberal hypocrisy palpable!

By rushncap

March 13, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this

Ah, thank you IN THE NEWS. Makes more sense now. I keep falling for the stupid conservative claptrap periodically.

Muff. I stand corrected. What Bush is doing is far more wrong. As usual.

By Blackadder

March 13, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

Andrea Mitchell says 18% is “most people”. She gets caught telling a full-on, blatant, no-way-to-spin-her-way-out-of-it lie right here.

By Pete H

March 13, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

From Karl Rove:

“Look, by law and by Constitution [sic], these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and traditionally are given a four year term. And Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys. When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys — there are some still left from the Clinton era in place. We have appointed a total of I think128 U.S. attorneys — that is to say the original 93, plus replaced some, some have served 4 years, some served less, most have served more. Clinton did 123. I mean, this is normal and ordinary.”

So, what Rove is saying is that it is routine for a president to replace all or most U.S. attorneys at the beginning of his term. Clinton did it. Bush did it. So, the “Clinton fired 93 and Bush only fired 8” is a faulty arguement. Bush cleaned house when he came into office. The recent 8 firings in question are a completely different matter.

John Posesta argrees with Rove, at least in part:

“Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution.”

By cynical

March 13, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this

So LuckoDill,

It’s political retribution when Clinton did it but when Reagan did it and Bush did it, that’s not political retribution.

Got me again, anything Republicans do has is pure and good and all Democrats are evil.

By Pete H

March 13, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this

From Karl Rove:

“Look, by law and by Constitution [sic], these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and traditionally are given a four year term. And Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys. When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys — there are some still left from the Clinton era in place. We have appointed a total of I think128 U.S. attorneys — that is to say the original 93, plus replaced some, some have served 4 years, some served less, most have served more. Clinton did 123. I mean, this is normal and ordinary.”

So, what Rove is saying is that it is routine for a president to replace all or most U.S. attorneys at the beginning of his term. Clinton did it. Bush did it. So, the “Clinton fired 93 and Bush only fired 8” is a faulty arguement. Bush cleaned house when he came into office. The recent 8 firings in question are a completely different matter.

By Old Fuddy Duddy

March 13, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this

Cynical - What do you call it when Clinton harassed and raped women repeatedly and you said that it was just personal and all of the women were dismissed as trouble-makers or whiners - even by militant feminists like Barbara Boxer and Sheila Jackson Lee? Mark Foley was dismissed forthwith for just sending racy e-mails. Bob Packwood was forced out of a Republican controlled Senate for conduct unbecoming a Senator. Ted Kennedy is still there. Sounds like it’s the Democrats with the double standard to me.

By Goldie

March 13, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

{{Godzilla - the hypocrisy is not on the right, at least not among the bloggers here.}}

Fuddy, is your problem delusional or just pure dementia?

By Mrs. Godzilla

March 13, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this

Mr. Duddy you are no gentleman.

By Daniel

March 13, 2007 3:18 PM | Link to this

rushncap: No need for that. When they talk look for the lie. Look for the distortion and deceit. To compare thetwo is a disservice. Bush/Rove went after the eight because they wouldn’t specifically prosecute democrats! (Domenici a New Mexico Senator who pressured the US Attorney there hired Duke Cunningham’s old attorney after the truth came out.) Trying to obstruct justice in this fashion is a crime! Changing US Attorneys when there is a new government happens all the time. When the republican gets in after a democrat administration thet clean house. The reverse us true. What makes this a case is the criminal activity. These people are the closest thing to fascism America has ever seen.

By Walt

March 13, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

“The constitution is a myth, it has always been a myth.”

It wasn’t a myth when people deferred to its principles.

That happened as recently as when Nixon was in office.

Walt

By COMICUS

March 13, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

How can you tell when a wing nut is telling a lie?

Their lips are moving!

By LuckoDull

March 13, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

By cynidull March 13, 2007 3:13 PM So LuckoDill, It’s political retribution when Clinton did it but when Reagan did it and Bush did it, that’s not political retribution.

When did I say anything about Reagan, Dullard?

That was politically motivated same as Clinton.

Bush gave these Clinton appointees a chance and is getting screwed for doing it, he should have knifed them in the back right off.

But you go ahead and make big hay out of something stupid, you candy as-sed whiners are exposing your own hypocrisy, again.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By cynical

March 13, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this

So LuckoDill,

It’s political retribution when Clinton did it but when Reagan did it and Bush did it, that’s not political retribution.

Got me again, anything Republicans do has is pure and good and all Democrats are evil.

By LuckoDull

March 13, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

By Daniella March 13, 2007 3:18 PM Bush/Rove went after the eight because they wouldn’t specifically prosecute democrats!

Wonder why nobody is talking about what these democrats did that Bush wanted prosecuted.

We need to find out.

I’m more than willing to go there, let’s bust this as-s over our knees.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By cynical

March 13, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

So LuckoDill,

It’s political retribution when Clinton did it but when Reagan did it and Bush did it, that’s not political retribution.

Got me again, anything Republicans do has is pure and good and all Democrats are evil.

By Goldie

March 13, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

{{wringing your hands about the poor and feeling guilty about having a large income, yet neglecting to buy a smaller car, house and all that and give the excess income to the poor folks you care so much about because it’s the governments responsibility, not mine.}}

Fuddy, please supply some data to back up your insane rants!

For example, who specifically feels “guilty” about earning a large income???

You really need to get your meds changed, because something is just not right with your brain. Or are you just a hopeless case?

By Old Fuddy Duddy

March 13, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

Cynical - no it is the same thing. The President whether or not he is a Republican or a Democrat has the absolute right to hire and fire “appointed” officials. Clinton exercised his wholesale. Bush did not. He just fired eight. He had that right. So did Clinton. End of argument.

By rushncap

March 13, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

Daniel — you are absolutely right, of course. I just keep forgetting it from time to time. You know “maybe this once they have a point, maybe this once we’re making a mountain out of a molehill.” Nope. But I guess it’s in my nature to question both sides. I think that’s good anyways — I would hate to become as blind and obedient to the party line as the idiot neocons on this board, no matter what that party line is. If I do that, I don’t think I’d be any better than RW or Dusty or Danish or @@. And that’s just disturbing.

By Old Fuddy Duddy

March 13, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

Goldie - all of you liberals who claim that the rich don’t pay their fair share and then foolishly include themselves like Richard Gephardt who claimed that anyone who earned above $75,000 a year was just a winner in life’s lottery. Or James Howard Sherman, a well-known consultant who stated that - “all of us who earn so much really don’t deserve it. That is why taxes on the “rich” need to be higher.”

By Blackadder

March 13, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this

OFD - 3:06: Godzilla - the hypocrisy is not on the right, at least not among the bloggers here. We see nothing wrong with the cars we drive nor the houses (no matter how big or how modest) we live in and we make no apologies for our incomes - because we have earned them. You folks however see nothing wrong in preaching to the rest of us while driving around gas-guzzlers with your Kerry-Edwards and F the President stickers, living in huge suburban or Buckhead energy hogging houses and wringing your hands about the poor and feeling guilty about having a large income, yet neglecting to buy a smaller car, house and all that and give the excess income to the poor folks you care so much about because it’s the governments responsibility, not mine. All of that is what makes liberal hypocrisy palpable!

OFD - 11:23: Painting with a broad brush is intellectually dihonest and really make you sound like a shrew or a harpy.

You seem to be more guilty than anyone of “painting with a broad brush”.

By Walt

March 13, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this

OFD Sends:

“Cynical - What do you call it when Clinton harassed and raped women repeatedly and you said that it was just personal and all of the women were dismissed as trouble-makers or whiners - even by militant feminists like Barbara Boxer and Sheila Jackson Lee?”

You must be starting to see the light on these egregious activities by the Bush minions.

You are starting to blame Clinton rather than face the faces we have before us today.

Walt

By Goldie

March 13, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

Uh-oh, looks like you Bush-kissers are on the wrong track again… Gonzalez admits “mistakes” were made in firing those prosecutors:

At a news conference Tuesday, Gonzales said he would find out what went wrong but said he would not resign. “I acknowledge that mistakes were made here. I accept that responsibility,” Gonzales said amid growing calls for his own termination.

Looks like once again your shameless attempts to justify Dubya’s actions are for naught.

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

THE ACTUAL END OF ARGUMENT FOR REPUBLICS

NO MATTER WHAT< NO MATTER WHO<

THERE IS NO UNDERLYING CRIME

BOY< WONT THEY BE SURPRISED AS THE SUPOENAS< INVESTIGATIONS AND CONVICTIONS BEGIN.

WE WILL NOT GET SATISFACTION HERE

WE WILL GET IT IN THE COURTS

AND IT IS COMING

AND ITS GONNA FEEL REAL GOOD

By Blackadder

March 13, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

It’s an interesting question: Why Would the Head of the New Mexico GOP Squeal on Turdblossom?

By Blackadder

March 13, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

For those who don’t know: Turdblossom is W’s pet name for Rove. Nice, huh?

By Buy Danish

March 13, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

EnvironmentalWAAAAAAAAAAcko alert,

“I’m scared,” he told the audience, looking down at his 15-year-old daughter in the front row. “I don’t think we’re going to make it.”

{{{Doerr issued a passionate call to action for everyone to make environmental concerns their “next big thing.” As one of several positive examples, he praised Wal-Mart for making great moves to address what he called the three largest energy drains in business—heating and cooling systems, lighting, and refrigeration. The giant’s initiative forced its 60,000 suppliers to focus on environmental issues as well, he said}}}

{{{“Going green is the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century,” said Doerr, who through his venture firm’s Greentech initiative is investing in the sector. Although much attention has been focused on fighting global warming, Doerr offered a bleak assessment of these efforts. “I’m afraid it’s not enough,” he said”}}}

Sound like he’s scared that his investments are going to tank when the big green ponzi scheme comes crashing down.

Maybe this guy should get a visit from social services to investigate child abuse. Can you imagine scaring your kids to death like that over Goracle’s fairy tale?

By Midori

March 13, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this

Just like I said yesterday: Old Fuddy Duddy is a living, breathing, carbon based form of Fox News.

He/it sounds completely like them.

Heck, for all “I” know, OFD could be a bot - which would go a long way in explaining some of his crazy, truth and logic-challenging posts.

By Andy

March 13, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

Clinton.

By rushncap

March 13, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

Well, it’ll be a cold, very cold, day in hell when someone starts taking scientific advise from Muffin. Her expertise in the area is confined to experimental determination of which generic knock-off of Windex leaves the fewest streaks.

By RE

March 13, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

Carol C. Lam was sworn in as interim United States Attorney for the Southern District of California on September 4, 2002, and was sworn in as the Presidentially-appointed United States Attorney on November 18, 2002.

Paul Charlton Appointed nov12 2001

Ms. Margaret M. Chiara was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on October 23, 2001

Daniel Bogden 9/4/2001

President George W. Bush nominated Mr. McKay to serve as the United States Attorney on September 19, 2001

Bud Cummins 2001-2006

OK, will this be adequate to show that these were not clinton holdovers?

By Midori

March 13, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this

You guys really need to take a look at this!!

By Midori

March 13, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry - what I posted at 3:59 is an email exchange between Gonzales Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, and then W.H. Counsel, Harriet Miers, which describes a list of “US Attorneys to be pushed out.”

By Buy Danish

March 13, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

Rushncap,

For a “scientist” your evidence it beyond weak, it is nonexistent. I have not given any “scientific” advice.

I noted the fact that the envirowacko whiner has big bucks tied up in green technology, and I gave the “advice” that it was unconscionable to scare your kids over Goracle’s demagoguery.

Maybe I missed it, but I don’t see anyone referencing this NYT story about the Hypester, Al Gore. Will wonders never cease!

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype

Later….

By getalife

March 13, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this

They are going after turdblossum.

By RE

March 13, 2007 4:09 PM | Link to this

off topic, but related:

The “Saturday Night Massacre” (October 20, 1973) was the term given by political commentators to U.S. President Richard Nixon’s executive dismissal of independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus during the Watergate scandal.

By Poofodull's Tiny Testes

March 13, 2007 4:09 PM | Link to this

I am very very small. Almost as small as Poofodull’s brain.

Most people think I’m a girl. Even my “Wife” Bi Danish.

We got married in Canada. We’ll go there if there’s ever a draft. We’re both spineless gutless chickenhawks. But we love to wave the flag!

By rushncap

March 13, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

Muff - I’m not saying the sky is falling. But the vast majority of people who don’t have a political ax to grind recognize that the climate is changing, and that most likely at least some of that change can be attributed to human beings. That’s a fact. Now how much? I don’t know, there is certainly no consensus there. I think Al Gore has done a good thing in initiating the conversation (you’re talking about it, ain’tcha?), now we may get to the brass tacks. What this likely means is that the funding for this research goes up, since there is a public outcry. And if nothing else, that is a great thing Gore has done. I’ve not seen his movie, I have no idea whether he’s way overboard or not. But I do know that he has attracted attention to a very important topic. This may even force the scientifically impotent Shubministration to act, and to pay some heed to it. I personally think there is some overhype here, but that is an opinion which is not based on solid scientific information. I hope this attention will provide us with more information. Because if Gore is even 20% on target, we’d be complete idiots to not try to solve this issue.

P.S. I assume the “use protective services to take a child away from a liberal for being a liberal” is your attempt at a joke. I really hope that you’re just drastically unfunny, rather than scarily insane.

By Goldie

March 13, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

{{Or James Howard Sherman, a well-known consultant who stated that - “all of us who earn so much really don’t deserve it. That is why taxes on the “rich” need to be higher.” }}

Fuddy— “a well-known consultant”??? Who is he? ROFLMAO!

Fuddy, you’ve got some major mental problems, yes?

By Daniel

March 13, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this

Rushncap: What we see here, over and over, end on end is the burgeoning fascist mentality. The Haliburton move is the classic fascist gut check. Corporate supremacy over American democracy. What do these people believe? They believe in corporate profit and power over all else. Remember: “Greed is good”? This is vintage fascism. The “Greed” is their greed. They can only exist in a liberal democracy. What happens when everyone is greedy?

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this

CRIPES _ DO THESE PEOPLE DO ANYTHING LEGAL?

Mechanical Glitch Ignored In Now Contested Florida Congressional Race

WASHINGTON - Last August, Election Systems & Software sent Florida election officials a letter informing them of a glitch in their electronic voting equipment — a problem that should be fixed before Election Day in November “to avoid any potential issues at the polls.”

Instead, the problem was ignored, said Sam Hirsch, a lawyer for Democratic congressional candidate Christine Jennings, who has petitioned the court and the Congress for a new election in Katherine Harris’s old district in Sarasota.

Kathy Dent, Sarasota Supervisor of Elections, confirmed in a phone interview today that the manufacturer’s recommendation was disregarded, and no action taken: “No one in the State of Florida updated” the equipment after receiving the letter, she said, “and that’s because it was too close to the election. It was a state decision that it was too late to make changes.”

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

THEY CANT TELL THE TRUTH AND THE REALITY BASED COMMUNITY KNOWS IT

NY Times article on Gore leaves out inconvenient truths In a March 13 article headlined “From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype,” New York Times science writer William J. Broad reported on criticism that Al Gore has received for his portrayal of the threat of global warming in the documentary An Inconvenient Truth. But of the sources cited in the article, at least four have records of misinformation on the issue. Though three of these were identified as skeptics or as having expressed skepticism, in all four cases, their past statements or studies questioning global warming theory have been debunked or discredited by the scientific community — which Broad did not report.

By Daniel

March 13, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this

RE: Great point! Nixon wanted to sack the special prosecutor. The AG and A*’t refused. Can anyone tell us who Nixon got to do the dirty work? Who was the A*’t US Attorney who fired Cox?

By Luckovich

March 13, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this

Coulter.

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

BORK< BORK< BORK

By Daniel

March 13, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this

The censor got me! I wrote Assistant in the common abreviation. It came out A**t.

By Scooter

March 13, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this

Daniel, help me out. If government tries to minimize regulations on the private sector and allow the competitive forces of the free market to provide the most cost effective products their demographic demands, that is fascism?

But, If a government wants to regulate the private sector to ensure economic and financial security to its citizens while also levying taxes on those corporations (who get the money to pay those taxes from the citizenry) to pursue the goals of politicians, that is “freedom” and “democracy”?

Do fascist governments have laws against monopolies and encourage strong competition within economic sectors?

By RE

March 13, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this

That would be 3rd in line at the DOJ, solicitor general Robert Bork!

By GodHatesTrash

March 13, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

I squat to pis-s.

By Midori

March 13, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish “quoting” the NY Times?

Oh, the horror!!!!!

By Andy

March 13, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

Clinton

By Daniel

March 13, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

Scooter: The answers are: 1) No, 2) No, and 3) Yes, typically.

By IN THE NEWS

March 13, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this

Schumer: Here are some of the falsehoods we’ve been told that are now unraveling. First, we were told that the seven of the eight U.S. attorneys were fired for performance reasons.

It now turns out this was a falsehood, as the glowing performance evaluations attest.

Second, we were told by the attorney general that he would, quote, “never, ever make a change for political reasons.”

It now turns out that this was a falsehood, as all the evidence makes clear that this purge was based purely on politics, to punish prosecutors who were perceived to be too light on Democrats or too tough on Republicans.

Third, we were told by the attorney general that this was just an overblown personnel matter.

It now turns out that far from being a low-level personnel matter, this was a longstanding plan to exact political vendettas or to make political pay-offs.

Fourth, we were told that the White House was not really involved in the plan to fire U.S. attorneys. This, too, turns out to be false.

Harriet Miers was one of the masterminds of this plan, as demonstrated by numerous e-mails made public today. She communicated extensively with Kyle Sampson about the firings of the U.S. attorneys. In fact, she originally wanted to fire and replace the top prosecutors in all 93 districts across the country.

Fifth, we were told that Karl Rove had no involvement in getting his protege appointed U.S. attorney in Arkansas.

In fact, here is a letter from the Department of Justice. Quote: “The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin.”

It now turns out that this was a falsehood, as demonstrated by Mr. Sampson’s own e-mail. Quote: “Getting him, Griffin, appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, et cetera.

Sixth, we were told to change the Patriot Act was an innocent attempt to fix a legal loophole, not a cynical strategy to bypass the Senate’s role in serving as a check and balance.

It was Senator Feinstein who discovered that issue. She’ll talk more about it.

So there has been misleading statement after misleading statement — deliberate misleading statements. And we haven’t gotten to the bottom of this yet, but believe me, we will pursue it.

By Coulter

March 13, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this

Hate.

By Sailor

March 13, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this

GodHatesTrash: You made me stiff.

Can we meat later?

By Dusty

March 13, 2007 5:07 PM | Link to this

Hmmmm

I see the regular libs are here today calling all conservatives names you wouldn’t want to repeat. What a way to fight. Namecalling, lies, insinuations, ID jacking, crude sexual accusations—all about people you do not know. That seems to be the liberal way.

Luckodull presents straight forward facts. Fuddy Duddy has been very accurate and has refrained from insults.(Hippocrite is nothing on this blog.)Buy Danish gives links and good points for which she is called the most vile names. @@ is busy teaching “special” children while her ID gets bounced by the brainless.

I shouldn’t bother with the mostly trash here. Thought I’d just make a quick read through. But it is so disappointing. Bashing Bush and the country is bad enough, but the nasty thinking here is despicable.

There’s a support-the-troops march downtown Atlanta tomorrow from 9-11. Liberals here in particular ought to go because nobody believes that you support the troops. Your words and actions speak too loudly. Go and try to behave in public. You don’t do it here but you might try in public.

By Sailor

March 13, 2007 5:10 PM | Link to this

Dusty: I wank in the Marta station.

By Scooter

March 13, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this

Daniel, fascism seems to have a somewhat fluid definition depending on who is labeling something or someone as fascist. Can I assume that your definition is on par with the political power that major corporations and wealthy individuals use to manipulate our government? And as the wealth accumulates it is used to exert further pressure on our government to satisfy the needs of the corporations rather than the people.

If so, it is yet another reason to support the FairTax. One benefit of the FairTax is it takes the power out of the hands of corporate lobbyist and replaces it in the hands of the citizenry.

By GodHatesTrash

March 13, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this

Sailor: O.K.

I must warn you, a long time ago I used to be a man. But my public school teacher taught me that being a he-she was hip and I decided to become one. Well, the illegal alien that I had do the operation botched it and now I am neither a male or a female.

I am just a receptacle.

By Buy Danish

March 13, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this

IN THE NEWS

Can you learn to use links? YOU ARE AN OBNOXIOUS SPAMMER AND YOU DON’T EVEN SOURCE YOUR STORIES which is a violation of copyright laws.

rushncap,

Interesting that you admit that liberals like to scare their kids. No wonder you’re all so screwed up.

In any case, it was satire, of course. If you find my satirical suggestion outrageous, I expect to hear loud dissent the next time someone is thrown into “sensitivity training” because they broke some politically correct rule.

I also hope you agree that this, which is not satire, is contemptible:

Earlier this month, a German teen-ager was forcibly taken from her parents and imprisoned in a psychiatric ward. Her crime? She is being home-schooled.

{{{On Feb. 1, 15 German police officers forced their way into the home of the Busekros family in the Bavarian town of Erlangen. They hauled off 16-year-old Melissa, the eldest of the six Busekros children, to a psychiatric ward in nearby Nuremberg. Last week, a court affirmed that Melissa has to remain in the Child Psychiatry Unit because she is suffering from “school phobia.”}}}

{{{Home-schooling has been illegal in Germany since Adolf Hitler outlawed it in 1938 and ordered all children to be sent to state schools…}}}

I’ll take the good old US of A over these “enlightened” Bush-hating European bureaucrats any day.

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

March 13, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this

-=-

I don’t think anyone cares about the firing of the 8, in-as-much as we care about the influence peddling, obstruction of justice, and perhaps even extortion from the Whitehouse upon them.

This is not about them being removed from office, as thats a given that they can be removed by law. It’s the facts and events that preceeded their removal and how pressure was brought upon them to do specific things in legal matters for political reasons. Thats what will be at issue!`

Laters all - Have a good evening`!

Thomas

By Daniel

March 13, 2007 5:24 PM | Link to this

Scooter: The one thing our government has done quite well over the past six years is to drench their corporate friends with our cash. No bid contracts, the war, and the rest are mere vehicles for this belief. I am no friend of Bush. What he has done expertly is borrow from China and Asia on the taxpayers tab, mind you, and flood his friends with cash. while preaching the gospel of “No taxes”. Yes, you can assume this is a few corporations having enormous power over our government. Bush has sacrificed our government to enhance corporate power. “A market economy?” it would be nice. When government chooses to favor a few friends, what is that called? It looks fascist to me. It is certainly not a competitive market. It is the reverse. What we have is anything but a A Free Market. what do you call it?

By LuckoDull

March 13, 2007 5:24 PM | Link to this

Hillary: Right-Wing Conspiracy Is Back!-http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8NRFPN00&show_article=1

Bull dy-ke Hillary is a vast left wing idiot.

How many of you candy as-s liberals lowered the shades and hid behind the sofa when you heard Butch Clinton say that?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By N-GA

March 13, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this

In The News,

Thanks for your 4:56. It is such a terrific summary of the facts. I think I heard several wing-nut heads implode.

I would be LMAO but it’s too criminal to be funny.

By Daniel

March 13, 2007 5:31 PM | Link to this

Lucko is running 96% today! Wow! I have never seen such numbers!

By Pinko

March 13, 2007 5:47 PM | Link to this

Bush left the lid up! Bush left the lid up!

By cynical

March 13, 2007 5:49 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Because everyone knows that Bush is G-D sent right? And as for support the troops, I support them more than you do or you’d care that they’re not as well prepared and armed as they could be. Or that they’re serving three and four tours and are actually, gasp burned out.

But I forget. To you Dusty, you’re only patriotic if you buy the pablum that everything Bush does is for the good of the people.

And Atlanta is a wee bit far from where I live, sorry, it’s not worth the trip from DC. I contribute money to organizations that focus on the families of the troops serving, do you?

Lastly, I hate when Democrats are hypocrites even more than I hate when Republicans are. But go on, keep painting us with the same brush, it’s much easier than admitting that there are greys in the world and not everything is black and white. After all, as one of your representatives from California said, wanting clean water for their citizens is Socialist so how could I expect any more from someone like you?

By rushncap

March 13, 2007 5:53 PM | Link to this

Muff — was there a point to your German story? Why the h3ll am I expected to defend actions of governments of other nations? We were talking about you and your sick sense of humor, not outlandish German laws.

As for scaring kids, it wasn’t liberals who forced American schoolchildren under desks because that’s where they’ll be safe from a nuclear blast. It’s not liberals who indoctrinate kids that if Joe and Steve next door get a marriage certificate, no one will ever marry the girl of his dreams again. It’s not liberals who say that if we criticize anything Bush does every building in our country will be destroyed by a suicide bomber and every girl would have to wear a burqua. It’s not liberals who invented the handy, color-coded “how scared should you be feeling right now” chart, which never dips below yellow because the population must never feel too secure. It’s not liberals who invented “Iraq is about to spray our air with poison unless we invade right this instant with no questions asked” lie. It’s not us who trades in fear, Muff. It’s you. You need fear so we don’t question your Golden Bush God.

By Daniel

March 13, 2007 5:56 PM | Link to this

Dusty: When you say: “Suport the troops” what you really mean is “Support Bush” You haven’t figured out your being played for a sucker. Why don’t you give us one more pedantic whine and go take your nap.

By @@

March 13, 2007 5:57 PM | Link to this

gadem:

All conservatives are elitists? I sure hope you aren’t including me in that mix. I grew up one of four military brats on a Chief Master Sargeant’s pay. A one income family.

My definition of an “elitist” is someone born to wealth. Someone educated by wealth. Someone spoiled by wealth. Someone who chooses to buy services, rather than perform services.

When I think of conservative and their approach to social programs, I’m reminded of that song from “An Officer and a Gentlemen”.

Love lifts US up where WE belong. Take notice of the “US” and “WE”. It’s all inclusive. No talking down to people. No insisting that they need your help.

Magneto:

I’m glad you’re having fun with your fantasy that includes myself and Buy Danish. Here’s hoping it’s a healthy one.

Did you try to discourage Buy Danish from returning to the board when you predicted that she would.

Naaawwwww, you wouldn’t try something that obvious, would you?

I have a strong suspiscion as to who you might be, but speculation is a waste of time.

Keep wasting yours though. I find it both entertaining, and flattering.

By Old Fuddy Duddy

March 13, 2007 6:11 PM | Link to this

Blackadder - I am indeed NOT painting with a broad brush. I am talking about basic tenets of liberalism and how liberals feel obligated to say certain things even though they do not live their lives in that way. It is like the pretend Fundamentalist Christian who drinks on the sly and beats his wife, but shows up every time the Church door is open. You folks are always telling me how it is our obligation as a society to take care of the poor and needy and to conserve resources etc… but you can’t walk the walk.

Albert A. Gore, Jr. is a prime example. He has a house that uses over a thousand dollars worth of natural gas in a month, yet he buys “offsets” to cleanse his conscience even though no one has yet given me a satisfactory explanation of how these offsets actually save any energy. He then flies around on a privat jet, using more energy and spewing more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. He then complains about the plight of the poor, but does no missionary work and hasn’t given away all of the money his DADDY made off investments from tobacco and Occidental Petroleum.

The foregoing is just a sample of the “limosine” liberals of whom I speak. The funniest part of it is, many of them helped to write the tax laws that keep their trust incomes secure while refusing to do away with estate taxes that destroy small businesses and family farms.

You paint with a broad brush by repeatedly calling conservatives stupid and uncompassionate and one step up from Australopithicus. Actually, the opposite is true. I don’t call liberals stupid because they disagree with me on some (but not all) issues. I just call them misguided and sometimes too stubborn to see the facts, like my friends who are convinced that Socialism will work if only the right people try it.

I must take the dog for a walk. See you folks later.

By @@

March 13, 2007 6:13 PM | Link to this

N-GA & rushncap:

Just to clarify, I didn’t vote for Cleland because I don’t like his politics. I saw the campaign ads, they were nothing like what was described. He was “whining”, I don’t like whining and I don’t like veterans using their service records for political aspirations. One is a noble endeavor, the other, in my opinion, isn’t.

I have voted both parties in every election as I recall. It’s the person, not the party for me.

Think about it….with all of the attacks on George Bush, Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld…have you ever heard them “whine”?

I haven’t or didn’t in the case of Rumsfeld.

By RE

March 13, 2007 6:15 PM | Link to this

@@ definition of elitists:

Al Gore, GW Bush, Jeb Bush, Ted Kennedy, Bill Kristol, John F Kerry, Bill Frist

Non Elitists:

Bill Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, Brack Obama, Jim Webb, Rudy Guliani, Duke Cunningham

Seems like the label of elitist is really irrelevant.

By Daniel

March 13, 2007 6:23 PM | Link to this

@@ Well, at least that settles one thing. You won’t have to worry about republicans using THEIR service records for political aspirations. They don’t have any. Neither Cleland nor Kerry deserved what you gave them. Now, guess what? You’re the one being “swiftboated”. Welcome to the club.

By Buy Danish

March 13, 2007 6:24 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

I don’t expect you to do anything about it, dumbass.

The point of the German story is that this is a country (like France) whose negative opinion of George Bush we are supposed to take seriously.

It is also a country that holds the concept of government schools in sacred reverence - a devotion shared by American liberals. Why? The better to indoctrinate you with, my dear.

As for your factually devoid, HYSTERICAL complaints, I am too speechless and doubled over with laughter to respond in detail.

The only point that had any merit at all was the bit about hiding under desks - I actually lived through that routine. Granted hiding under a desk wasn’t going to do much of anything, but it could be argued that thinking that it might actually gave people a sense of well-being as opposed to feeling totally helpless.

The threat that we faced from nuclear attack was based on realistic evaluations of what could happen, not on scary Chicken Little stories about “climate change”.

There are kids crying themselves to sleep at night in fear and worrying about stranded Polar Bears, thanks to Al Gore, and it’s all based on a Big Lie.

By RW-(the original)

March 13, 2007 6:25 PM | Link to this

Those look a lot more like names than definitions, but I haven’t had a chance to catch up with the blog yet. I’ll read back and see if there is any good reason for RE to be confusing names and definitions. Oh and if there is any reason for putting one reporter in with thirteen politicians. Strange…

By Scooter

March 13, 2007 6:26 PM | Link to this

OK Daniel. Where do corporations get the cash to pay their taxes?

By RW-(the original)

March 13, 2007 6:30 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

I’m pretty sure Kennedy was President when I got my hide under the desk in case of nukes training.

rushncap,

Why are you so p-issed off at Kennedy?

By One Voice

March 13, 2007 6:31 PM | Link to this

Granny,

Your junior high school education doesn’t qualify you to discuss global warming. Why, oh why didn’t you accept that high school scholarship back in the 70’s? Oh, I know- because it was a public school that may have tried to indoctrinate you. Only the church can do that properly. It did a damn fine job if your purpose was to end up a wacked out empty-headed loon like Mandy. Damn fine.

By RE

March 13, 2007 6:33 PM | Link to this

RW,

From @@; My definition of an “elitist” is someone born to wealth. Someone educated by wealth. Someone spoiled by wealth. Someone who chooses to buy services, rather than perform services

By Daniel

March 13, 2007 6:33 PM | Link to this

Well, if your Haliburton its the government. So too, Blackwater, KBR, and the other 100,000 subcontractors in Iraq. Look, I have met a payroll for thirty years. I work for a living, pay taxes and love my kids and grandkids. I expect government to be honest, truthful, economical, efficient and small. I am disappointed. I favor american ingenuity, industry and competitiveness. I am disappointed. The Asians and Germans are beating our brains out in the marketplace. We don’t manufacture anything, anymore. War and the spoils of war make huge profits for certain select companies. The rest of us have to scrape by.

By Buy Danish

March 13, 2007 6:36 PM | Link to this

@@,

I actually disagree with your definition of “elitist”.

An elitist is someone who thinks they know what is best for you because they think they are smarter and better educated than the riff raff peasantry who are too stupid to know how to live their lives without their expert guidance.

One can be a wealthy, and have inherited wealth, and not be an elitist. George Bush does not have an elistist bone in his body. Al Gore reeks of elitism.

Elitists like to make up rules that they exempt themselves from.

Elitists propose Big Government, Nanny State solutions.

The list is far too long, but essentially they are masters of “Do as I say, not as I do”.

By Truthsayer

March 13, 2007 6:37 PM | Link to this

Scooter - You have a good point. Every time we raise taxes on corporations, we actually raise taxes for ALL consumers, but especially for those who can least afford it because corporate taxes are simply expenses like all others which businesses incurr which are passed on to the consumer. In the end, it’s the people that those who hate the corporates claim they want to protect who are screwed. I just made all of the anti-corporate, anti-free enterprise people furious with the unvarnished, undisputable truth!

By Daniel

March 13, 2007 6:41 PM | Link to this

Truthsayer: Who is going to pay for the National Debt? And one other question. If we are fighting for our national life on the ground in Iraq, Why should a corporation make a windfall profit?

By rushncap

March 13, 2007 6:41 PM | Link to this

Ooooh, “dumbass”. Really showing that “maturity” there, Muff. Good one. I guess “doubled over with laughter” in Muff-speak means “I can’t respond to your salient points so maybe if I try to brush them off no one would ever notice”. Sorry Muff, the rest of us aren’t as dumb as you. We noticed. You could not address a single one of my points because you know I’m right. Oh well.

Your point of “we can’t take anything Germany says seriously because they took away a kid” is so ridiculous, so far beyond any logical bounds that to call it a “non-sequitur” would be much too generous. Did you ask li’l andy what to say? This is really at his level of inanity.

Stalk - the Red Scare was largely fabricated by the conservatives. They used it well, too. Black lists, McCarthy, “One nation under God”, etc.

By RW-(the original)

March 13, 2007 6:41 PM | Link to this

RE,

Thanks. There wasn’t much worth reading up there anyway. So is Kristoll just a particular beef of yours? I’m sure you could make an elite/non elite list of journalists pretty east too.

To whoever was wondering about the posting problems. Firefox and IE 7 seem to work fine if you post and hit refresh while it’s waiting there. IE-6 is double posting when you do that or timing out to the “can’t display this page” error if you wait. If you’re using IE 6 or lower you really need to upgrade to 7 or switch browsers.

By Truthsayer

March 13, 2007 6:41 PM | Link to this

Daniel - I don’t know if you have picked up an economics journal in a while or looked at an Almanac, but Germany isn’t beating many folks, especially us, these days. Their unemployment rate is sky high, their productivity is at a record low and their economy is stagnant. Our economy is still one of the most powerful and productive in the world. Be a little more optomistic and upbeat. For all our faults, we are still the greatest nation on Earth!

By Scooter

March 13, 2007 6:42 PM | Link to this

Daniel, I thought it was a simple question.

Where do Corporations get the cash to pay their taxes?

By Buy Danish

March 13, 2007 6:44 PM | Link to this

RW,

That’s right, it WAS J.F.K.’s fault!

Falsetto Voice,

One doesn’t need a scholarship to go to the Bronx High School of Science or Hunter, one needs to pass certain entrance requirements - which I did. Any more ignorant statements you’d like to impress us with?

How’s your family doing? I bet they love their Daddy, EEK EEK!

By RW-(the original)

March 13, 2007 6:45 PM | Link to this

Dmitry,

I know you think there was never any danger from communism or nukes, but as usual you’re wrong.

If you want to go back the McCarthy you should take a good look at the Venona Project papers. I bet you think Tailgunner Joe put those nukes in Cuba for Kennedy to deal with too.

You do have a tiny point though. John Kennedy would be crucified as a neocon madman by today’s liberals.

By Goldie

March 13, 2007 6:46 PM | Link to this

{{He then flies around on a privat jet, using more energy and spewing more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.}}

Oldsama Fuddy Duddy recommends that VP Gore use rowboats and bicycles when traveling around the USA to give environmental lectures, otherwise all greenhouse gas arguments are null — HUH?

Even if he did cow-tow to your asinine demands, Fuddy, he would then be chastised for being what — I dunno, take a pick of all the names you like to call everybody you don’t agree with…

Just like the occupation of Iraq, you want to create a no-win situation for anyone who attempts to educate Americans about environmental problems. They have to live like nomads or indigents in order to even be listened to by you looney-binners???

Such rigid, narrow-minded people you are! No wonder your “family values” platform is crashing — you’ve made it so rigid and confining that most Americans can’t follow all of your rules.

By Truthsayer

March 13, 2007 6:48 PM | Link to this

Daniel - you still are not listening. One way or the other the consumer pays it. Period. You just want to pay a shell game and hurt the average guy because you are convinced that there is such thing as a windfall profit. That is a bunch of bunk. All business cycles go up and down and a windfall profit is just a liberal wet dream. Buy Milton Friedman’s books and read them. He’s the best at explaining it in terms the average fellow can get. Al Gore might even understand even though there are no pictures.

By RW-(the original)

March 13, 2007 6:50 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

Don’t get Gore back in a row boat. He’ll end up releasing millions of gallons of water during a draught again like he did for that photo op back in 2000.

By LuckoDull

March 13, 2007 6:50 PM | Link to this

By Truthsayer March 13, 2007 6:41 PM Daniel - I don’t know if you have picked up an economics journal in a while or looked at an Almanac, but Germany isn’t beating many folks, especially us, these days.

truthsayer: Daniella is grasping for boogeymen, she needs to be scared. I’m pretty sure that her nutting up and being a man is out of the question.

They’re all backseat driving hysteritics.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By One Voice

March 13, 2007 6:51 PM | Link to this

Granny,

It’s a shame you didn’t take advantage of the opportunity. I get a kick out of the fact that you think doing a google search of right wing propaganda sites constitutes research. It shows why you have such a twisted understanding of reality. Had you received an education you’d actually know how to do some research, you would have debunked some of the myths you currently believe in, and you would have a different world view.

By @@

March 13, 2007 6:55 PM | Link to this

RE, you tickle me the way you nitpick a post.

I think I failed to make myself clear. Wealth is not the only contributing factor. It has everything to do with attitude. I thought the word “spoiled” would help differentiate. Wealth that spoils destroys your character.

Buy Danish:

Bush would have better table manners if he was a “spoiled” elitist. They seem to think those trivialities are important.

If I’m not mistaken, RE once said Bush was an embarrassment with his awkwardness at formal affairs.

Naaahhhh, just the everyman guy, I say….

By RE

March 13, 2007 6:56 PM | Link to this

BD’s Definition:

An elitist is someone who thinks they know what is best for you because they think they are smarter and better educated than the riff raff peasantry who are too stupid to know how to live their lives without their expert guidance.

Elitists: Every Pope, Bishop, Priest, Imam, and Rabbi. Karl Marx, Abraham Lincoln, Adolf Hitler, Thomas Jefferson.

By Buy Danish

March 13, 2007 6:56 PM | Link to this

Little Squirt Rushncap,

I missed your “salient” points. All I got was incoherent and hysterical ramblings. Like this -

{{{It’s not liberals who indoctrinate kids that if Joe and Steve next door get a marriage certificate, no one will ever marry the girl of his dreams again.}}}

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

And this -

{{{It’s not liberals who invented the handy, color-coded “how scared should you be feeling right now” chart, which never dips below yellow because the population must never feel too secure.}}}

Are kids going to bed in fear at night because of the “stuck on yellow” warning system?

As for Germany, as part of Europe, has a different “mindset” than most Americans, but libs like you probably find much to recommend it.

By One Voice

March 13, 2007 6:57 PM | Link to this

That’s rich- Mandy trying to insult Daniel’s manhood. Mandy, the original keyboard commando. Mandy, the spineless all-talk-no-action POS. Mandy, the Ted Haggard who hasn’t been outed yet.

By Daniel

March 13, 2007 6:57 PM | Link to this

Ok, let’s try it this way. If you’re an Insurance Company you get the money from the ratepayer. If your Haliburton you get a bundle from the government. If you’re General Motors you get it from the car buyer. Hello? Truthsayer: you live in an imaginary world. I work for a living. I think I’m an average Joe. “Windfall profit a bunch of bunk”? I don’t need to read a book. I think I’ll live a life and pay attention to the world around me. Thank you. Yes, I feel I am fortunate to live in the USA. There is more to this. I will await your response.

By Buy Danish

March 13, 2007 6:59 PM | Link to this

Correction ^^^^!

…as A part of Europe IT has a different mindset…

RW,

I am finding that @@’s tip about hitting the refresh button results in instant post karma - unless one has links.

By Goldie

March 13, 2007 7:00 PM | Link to this

{{CRIPES _ DO THESE PEOPLE DO ANYTHING LEGAL?}}

ITN— no, they don’t… it’s all part of their Mafia mentality and values!

By RW-(the original)

March 13, 2007 7:01 PM | Link to this

If there really is anyone new to this blog I should warn you that RE really, REALLY likes lists. Please don’t encourage him.

By rushncap

March 13, 2007 7:06 PM | Link to this

Stalk, I did not say that there was no danger from Communism. I’m saying that cons exploited that fear for political purposes by overstating it and overdramatizing it. Just like there is danger from radical Islam. But rather than addressing the danger with a clear, level head Bush had whipped the whole country into an irrational frenzy, and used that to get us stuck in Iraq. The question is not danger, the question is political opportunism. You know, the thing Muff accuses Gore of doing.

By the way, the USSR gained from the missile crisis, in objective terms. They got Kennedy to remove American rockets from, I believe, Turkey, without losing anything they had prior to the whole deal. Of course America gained a lot morale-wise.

Muff, I bet you more kids are scared that there is an “orange” terror alert than that we’re releasing greenhouses gases. It’s easier for kids to understand: orange means be afraid. Most kids don’t know what a greenhouse gas is.

As for Europe, you retard, yes there is much to admire there. There is also much to not like. Is it really so hard to get through your thick skull that it’s possible to like certain things and not other things about a country, or a party, or anything else for that matter? I mean, are you PLAYING extremely stupid, or is your “good enough to get into high school” IQ exponentially declining through the years? Which is it?

By RE

March 13, 2007 7:08 PM | Link to this

Actually, the point I am trying to make is that the term “elitist” is an arbitrary and meaningless phrase meant to be tacked on to people with whom you disagree with. I would say most people would consider themselves as “middle class”. (if you make 20k/year, you are not really poor, and if you make 250k/year, you are not really rich)

Elitist is a term meant to instill a sense of class seperation. The thought process goes that if someone is different than you are by being “elitist” they do not hold your values and thier opinions can be discounted. Common political tactic. Very common in communist countries. And meaningless

By Daniel

March 13, 2007 7:12 PM | Link to this

You haven’t answered the question about “War Profit ” when our country is fighting for her life. May we, then, conclude that Asia IS beating our brains out? We’re 8 trillion dollars in debt to our bankers, “Godless Communists”. I want american products on the ascendent. I do not see that.

By LuckoDull

March 13, 2007 7:13 PM | Link to this

By Daniel March 13, 2007 6:57 PM If your Haliburton you get a bundle from the government.

Shriek, shriek!

Former Clinton Officials Call Halliburton Charges Ridiculous. Clinton Procurement Official Steven Kelman Calls Allegations Against Halliburton “Somewhere Between Highly Improbable And Utterly Absurd.” “One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded – whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert – who doesn’t regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd. … Many people are also under the impression that contractors take the government to the cleaners. In fact, government keeps a watchful eye on contractor profits – and government work has low profit margins compared with the commercial work the same companies perform.-http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1184989/posts

Yyyyyyaaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnn.

The Clinton years were very good to Halliburton right to the final days. In the fall of 2000, Halliburton won a $300 million contract to build a massive prison at Guatanamo Bay in Cuba.-http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair07142005.html

See what I’m saying about hysteritics?

The democratic party is full of them. They freak out about things that they had no problems at all DOING THEMSELVES just a few years ago.

They natter on and babble about Jesus Christ and the “horrors” of salvation, but then they join the “church” of some lunatic over goofy ideas like “global warming” and “evolution,” ignorant theories without a shred of prove and totally based on hysteria.

They need to be locked up in rubber rooms where they can’t be heard, at least until the men are done fighting off the terrorists.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Goldie

March 13, 2007 7:15 PM | Link to this

{{As for Europe, you retard, yes there is much to admire there. There is also much to not like. Is it really so hard to get through your thick skull that it’s possible to like certain things and not other things about a country, or a party, or anything else for that matter?}}

rushncap— these Neo-con rightwingers just can’t help themselves… they’ve got that demonizing mentality going 24/7 now. Ever since about the mid-80’s when Ray-gun’s dementia was becoming all too apparent… they have a cult-worship of Ray-gun, ya know. And whoever he demonized, they automatically have to demonize, too. At that time, it was about 45% of America who were considered “liberal” (or, as Papa Bush liked to call it “the L-word”). Today, they demonize about 70% of America.

By Buy Danish

March 13, 2007 7:18 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

I’ll try not to embarrass you too much and won’t dwell on your “retard” comment. I’m sorry you don’t “get” my point about Germany. I bet other’s did.

Meanwhile, every “fear” statement you made is categorically wrong.

They are not afraid of the color colded system and never give it a second thought.

Believe me, they know what greenhouse gasses are - if they are in public schools they are taught this from at least Third Grade on, if not earlier.

Falsetto Voice,

When you stop making up fictitious accounts about my life I might pay attention to your hilarious observation that I need help separating fact from fiction.

btw, I don’t google “right wing websites”. I google phrases like “Janet Reno+fired 93 attorneys”.

EEK EEK.

By RW-(the original)

March 13, 2007 7:19 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

I’ve found it to be a little hit and miss, but I also gave up on links until they get things going. I have no idea why they insist on this blog setup. They have the MyAJC blogs that work great.

By Buy Danish

March 13, 2007 7:21 PM | Link to this

EGADS! I meant to say “others” not “other’s”^^^^

I await a lecture from the punk Stalker Boy…

By Scooter

March 13, 2007 7:31 PM | Link to this

Better Daniel, I would phrase it as whoever needs and pays for the service and/or product ends up paying the tax. Now Haliburton is an easy target to criticize and by no means am I saying they don’t need to be put under heavy scrutiny. But, they are operating in a combat zone and under heavy demands so I will have faith that it will shake out in the long term.

Who would you suggest have won the LOGCAP Contract prior to 9/11? There is a French company that can provide the same scale of specialized services, but you want to keep “our money” in the US, right?

By @@

March 13, 2007 7:36 PM | Link to this

RE:

BINGO!!!!!!

(((Elitist is a term meant to instill a sense of class seperation.)))

That’s why I apply it to Democrats….because they work so diligently to point out the differences and maintain them from their high pedastal of authority. It’s feel good politics. The kind they can’t survive without.

My “conservative” way:

I’ll do everything I can to offer a “hand up”…come join me…$20K…WE can do better than that. LET’S get you up to $50K, then you’re on your own and on your way.

Congratulations! I knew YOU could do it.

By @@

March 13, 2007 7:56 PM | Link to this

Just testing a link with a little “wordplay”.