Mike Luckovich

By LuckoDull

March 14, 2007 7:47 PM | Link to this

One of the most cowardly presidential policies in the history of the nation:

The campaign promise- In 1992, presidential candidate Bill Clinton declared his opposition to the military’s exclusion of lesbian, gay and bisexual soldiers.

The cut and run from the campaign promise, just like all libs do- During Clinton’s first year in office, a very public congressional and national debate ensued regarding the question of whether the military’s practices were acceptable. Advocates for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community proposed a policy of equal treatment, reasoning that sexual orientation has no bearing on a person’s ability to serve. However, after hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee and much debate, a compromise now known as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass” policy was reached in 1993.-http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/GetInformed/Issues/Military2/FactSheetsDontAskDontTell/DontAsk,DontTellFact_Sheet.htm

Clinton is the one who declared himself a “sissy” not our soldiers.

What’s the matter Mikey, you don’t like your boy’s legacy?

Trying to pawn it off on Bush, like EVERYTHING ELSE?

Wanker.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By LuckoDull

March 14, 2007 7:51 PM | Link to this

When they’re not calling our soldiers “f*” in editorial cartoons, they’re busy threatening the lives of people that report good news about them and their mission in Iraq:

Matt Drudge sent me an e-mail this morning. After he posted this story he started getting death threats and hate mail from kooks accusing him of lying and putting out this kind of news. Drudge said, “You know, it wasn’t until I started getting all these that I actually realized that you are right, they do want to lose.”-http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031407/content/01125108.member.html

“Supporting the Troops.”

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By George

March 14, 2007 11:27 PM | Link to this

Andy, don’t you ever sleep?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

By George

March 14, 2007 11:30 PM | Link to this

Andy, don’t you ever sleep or get tired of being wrong?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

By George

March 14, 2007 11:31 PM | Link to this

Andy, don’t you ever sleep or get tired of being wrong?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 6:16 AM | Link to this

Georgie Girl:

1) Yes.

2) Yes, when was I wrong?

3) Yes, when was I wrong?

You may want to check the clock before you lose it next time; you were the one who was posting at midnight.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 6:29 AM | Link to this

And Congress? They’ve been too busy allocating money for bridges to nowhere, like the $315 million bridge between Ketchikan and Alaska’s Gravina Island (population, 48), while simultaneously cutting funds for traumatic brain injuries. “Unbelievably, in its appropriations bill for 2007,” says retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, “Congress cut in half the financing for the Army’s main research and treatment program on brain injury, the signature malady of this war, which, no surprise, is at Walter Reed.”-http://www.spectator.org/dsparticle.asp?artid=11154

Cut in half? By Congress?

Guess who got blamed for it.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Mrs. Godzilla

March 15, 2007 8:07 AM | Link to this

LuckoDull I will hate myself later for saying this, but I agree with you. Don’t ask don’t tell was pretty lame on Clintons part. Intolerance is pretty lame.

So is letting go of a significant number of Arabic speaking members of the military because they were gay. Pretty Lame.

If anybody wants to go all Leviticus on me, look at the fabric content of your clothing, the shape of your haircut and your yen for big fat gulf shrimp ( I suggest the cold deep water royal reds). Then we will talk about abominations.

From all signs our boys and girls want to come home. They have done all this military campaign could do.

Help fund the withdrawal. E-mail your representatives.

Peace.

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 8:16 AM | Link to this

LuckoDull,

Are you not bothering with real links because of the server problems or is the server not allowing the links? All you links take me to “How May we help you?”

Anyway, here’s more from Rush’s monologue on Drudge’s epiphany that the Democrats want us to be defeated (I’m going to try linking it and will also give the URL):

Yes, they want to lose. They are invested in it. They own defeat. Folks, do you understand politically the worst thing that can happen for these people is for the surge to work. The worst thing that can happen would be for this Iraq war to end in a victory. The Democrats are so far out, they can’t come back and claim any credit for it whatsoever. They cannot permit victory to take place. They just can’t. So any news like this that gets publicized, whoever is responsible for it, is going to hear from these kooks, from the fringe.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031407/content/01125108

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 8:22 AM | Link to this

Danish: The linked comments are blue only because I bracket them to set them apart, you have to cut and paste the link provided at the end.

The Urinal server is eating linked comments, or censoring them depending upon your interpretation.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Kerry

March 15, 2007 8:23 AM | Link to this

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CLASSIC

By BuyDanish'sJohn

March 15, 2007 8:24 AM | Link to this

See you later today Buy Danish. Can’t wait for that toothless treat that I love so very much.

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 8:26 AM | Link to this

Ann nails it again:

When Republican Saxby Chambliss challenged Democrat Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia Senate race, he ran an ad attacking Cleland for demanding civil service protections for workers at the Homeland Security Department. Naturally, Republicans were accused of hating veterans for mentioning Cleland’s vote on the Homeland Security bill. Now that the Democrats are once again pretending to give a damn about the troops by wailing about conditions at Walter Reed, how about some Republican — maybe Chambliss! — introduce a bill to remove civil service protections from employees at Walter Reed and all veterans’ hospitals? You know, a bill that would actually address the problem.-http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=inwashington,itsalwaystheyearoftherat&ns=AnnCoulter&dt=03/14/2007&page=2

Actually address the problem?

Does anybody really believe that’s what the libs want to do?

This is Bush hunting season to them.

The soldiers are of any real concern.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Truthsayer

March 15, 2007 8:27 AM | Link to this

This will be my only comment for today as I am slammed. LuckoDull and BuyDanish - you are both completely right. Godzilla - you’ve got it partly right - the part about gays in the military and Clinton being a hypocrite. Otherwise libs, you are invested in defeat as your political future depends upon it. Heavens forbid that we win, then you will lose, lose, lose. God bless our troops!

By DebbieDoRight

March 15, 2007 8:29 AM | Link to this

Hmmm interesting toon. I wonder if the military really WOULD let thousands of troops quit if they said they were gay? I bet they’d change their stance on don’t ask don’t tell REALLY quick!

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 8:30 AM | Link to this

Despite an obviously liberal and negative bias plainly visible to the American public (61% of Americans say war coverage is not fair and objective, 57% say that it’s been too negative and 56% say coverage tends to favor a liberal point of view), most media elites continue to deny any bias at all.-http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1502&status=article&id=258765200226126

Could it be no good news gets reported from Iraq because the moonbats at MoveOn threaten to kill anyone who reports it?

Hell, it’s safer in Baghdad than it is in New York for honest reporters.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By DebbieDoRight

March 15, 2007 8:30 AM | Link to this

Hmmm interesting toon. I wonder if the military really WOULD let thousands of troops quit if they said they were gay? I bet they’d change their stance on don’t ask don’t tell REALLY quick!

By candide

March 15, 2007 8:31 AM | Link to this

Calling themselves gay or not, our troops should just shoot their officers and come home.

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

HERE ARE THE FACTS: There were indeed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq (Saddam used them on his own people). There were terrorists moving freely within the borders of Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. There were conversations taking place between international terrorists and Iraqi officials before 2003. President Bush did not instigate the bombing of the Golden Dome mosque in Samarra last year (thus triggering the new, increasingly sectarian-fighting phase of the war). Iraq is not a lost cause (unless the anti-Iraq War crowd is allowed to have a free hand in war policy). Iraq is not a meatgrinder (I’ll get to what is in a moment). What happened at Abu Ghraib and, allegedly, Haditha are not the results of some dark policy initiated by some secret White House inner circle. Unlike the terrorists and guerrillas, targeting non-combatants is not the modus operandi of our soldiers. And anyone who says otherwise is simply fomenting propaganda for political purposes or repeat-mouthing misinterpretations of realities they basically know nothing about…

Then there are the additional elements of propaganda, like downplaying Iraqi elections (damning the elections with faint praise and practically ignoring the enormous percentage of Iraqis who risked their very lives to vote) and playing up the U.S. casualty figures (without lending any perspective to those figures by looking at the astronomical losses suffered by the U.S. in previous wars) – all for the sake of political hay.

I blame the wobbliness of the American Electorate squarely on the shoulders of America’s media with an objective. These are the people who constantly provide the voting public with every tid-bit of negative news out of Iraq they can find. Any news that portrays our soldiers as ruthless killers will be on page one. Any news that shows the horrors of war will be front and center.

Their deceit of omission seems to portray pre-war Iraq from the perspective of Saddam’s favorite group, the Sunni’s. I ask fair minded individuals to ask themselves, have you seen a single story printed that showed the opening of a school, or the rehab or reconstruction of a water treatment plant? My answer is I have not. I know (from my own independent research) that there have been dozens upon dozens of such events and the fact the

By BeenThereDoneThat

March 15, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

The time for a “surge” was 2 years ago. This war was so badly bungled by the Bush/Cheney neo-con cabal that now we are definately bogged down in a quagmire. The opportunity for “victory” has passed, but John McCain nailed it when he described the cost of leaving. What we achieve in the end is unpredictable. What is certain is that more lives will be needlessly expended because the Bush team and their buddy Don Rumsfeld just didn’t get it. Had this surge, along with the canning of Rumsfeld been expedited 2 years ago and Gates and company put in charge of this war, things might be radically different today. But folks. There will be no “victory” under any circumstances.

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 8:40 AM | Link to this

There were terrorists moving freely within the borders of Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. There were conversations taking place between international terrorists and Iraqi officials before 2003. President Bush did not instigate the bombing of the Golden Dome mosque in Samarra last year (thus triggering the new, increasingly sectarian-fighting phase of the war). Iraq is not a lost cause… Iraq is not a meatgrinder (I’ll get to what is in a moment). What happened at Abu Ghraib and, allegedly, Haditha are not the results of some dark policy initiated by some secret White House inner circle. Unlike the terrorists and guerrillas, targeting non-combatants is not the modus operandi of our soldiers. And anyone who says otherwise is simply fomenting propaganda for political purposes or repeat-mouthing misinterpretations of realities they basically know nothing about…](http://worlddefensereview.com/wts031507.shtml)

Then there are the additional elements of propaganda, like downplaying Iraqi elections (damning the elections with faint praise and practically ignoring the enormous percentage of Iraqis who risked their very lives to vote) and playing up the U.S. casualty figures (without lending any perspective to those figures by looking at the astronomical losses suffered by the U.S. in previous wars) – all for the sake of political hay.

I blame the wobbliness of the American Electorate squarely on the shoulders of America’s media with an objective. These are the people who constantly provide the voting public with every tid-bit of negative news out of Iraq they can find. Any news that portrays our soldiers as ruthless killers will be on page one. Any news that shows the horrors of war will be front and center.

Their deceit of omission seems to portray pre-war Iraq from the perspective of Saddam’s favorite group, the Sunni’s. I ask fair minded individuals to ask themselves, have you seen a single story printed that showed the opening of a school, or the rehab or reconstruction of a water treatment plant? My answer is I have not. I know (from my own independent research) that there have been dozens upon dozens of such events and the fact the controllers of information define such stories as non-news is very telling.

By Social

March 15, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this

If the nonbinding resolution by the democrats emboldened our enemies, then I wonder what mike’s toon did? Is the surge now seen as a gay pride parade? The enemy is emboldened by the emblazened!

The terrorists have their own gay policy. If you’re gay, dont announce it right before you detonate the suicide bomb…..”Allah be praised, and I prefer men, but I consider myself bisexual, and if I had to label myself, I’d definately be a bottom!”

By Blackadder

March 15, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this

For the last six years, the Bush presidency has operated under a veil of secrecy, not so unlike those worn by women in the stricter Islamic countries, and under a rationale not too dissimilar: what is hidden isn’t known and what isn’t known can’t hurt (or tempt) you.

While Congress sat complacently by and allowed Team Bush to run amok with American reputation, treasure, and future generations, all sorts of malfeasance was taking place, from crafting secret energy policies with major private energy interests to plotting against his own appointed federal prosecutors. Since the day the Supreme Court installed Bush as Dunce in Chief the American public has been increasingly shut out of their government. But in the two months since the Democrats have taken the reins investigations have turned over several rocks, providing evidence that in the Bush White House, politics and political fealty rule supreme.

The stain Bush has put on the ‘honor of the office’ is a whole lot bigger than the one left on Monica’s dress.

By the way Scooter - doesn’t it embarrass you to post commentary that has been debunked?

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 8:47 AM | Link to this

Neumayr!:

The Bush administration’s “conservatism” seems to consist of conserving Clinton-era liberalism, then expanding it under pressure from PC propagandists. The Democrats launch dumb policies; hapless, unprincipled Republicans complete them.-http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19813

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By No Woe Ho

March 15, 2007 8:47 AM | Link to this

”“‘I ask fair minded individuals to ask themselves, have you seen a single story printed that showed the opening of a school, or the rehab or reconstruction of a water treatment plant?”“”

I ask fair minded individuals to ask themselves, have you seen a single picture of the flag draped coffin of one of our fine soldiers? Are you aware of the number of cases of PTSD? Anybody see 8 billion in lost reconstruction money?

Don’t try that old war drum beating anymore, American’s are not dancing to that tune.

By Eric

March 15, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this

Another excellent effort by our own political cartoon genius. Thanks Mike!

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this

Sorry for the double up. The first attempt told me my post was too long and wouldn’t be posted, so I shortened and reposted.

By Brian Curtis

March 15, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this

Now this is a good cartoon: timely and funny!

And as a bonus, Dusty will no doubt complain that Luckovich is “mocking the troops.” Silly ol’ Dusty, who squawks endlessly about patriotism without understanding what it means….

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

LuckoDull,

My link worked. Maybe they have gotten some of the bugs out of the system?

I don’t have time right now, but I’ll try some multiple links later and see what happens.

By gadem

March 15, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

Really Scoot you should not have posted it the first time.

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 9:02 AM | Link to this

In a section of the statement that was blacked out, he confessed to the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, The Associated Press has learned. Pearl was abducted in January 2002 in Pakistan while researching a story on Islamic militancy. Mohammed has long been a suspect in the killing.-http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8NSEAHO0&show_article=1

Any one have doubts about how bad the candy as-s pinko libs would like to set this guy free?

The colonel said Mohammed’s torture allegations would be “reported for any investigation that may be appropriate” and also would be taken into account in consideration of his enemy combatant status.-Same link.

Investigate what?

It’s not like the interrogators cut this scumbag’s head off or anything.

Why does filth like this attract the sympathies of our dullards here in the America?

He shouldn’t even be alive right now.

It’s reprehensible to let him speak.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 9:02 AM | Link to this

Great idea, Luckovich— A sure way to bring our troops home!

By Republican Kid Killers

March 15, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this

UNITED NATIONS - The World Food Program has launched an appeal for $1.7 million to help feed tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees who are continue to arrive in Syria and increasingly without the resources to sustain themselves.

King George destroys the homes of Iraqi children and makes them homeless refugees. Republicans hate children nearly as much as they hate everything else!

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this

{{Hell, it’s safer in Baghdad than it is in New York for honest reporters.}}

And you know this, Andy-Dull, because… please provide the specifics to your asinine argument.

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this

Thank God for liberals — there’s a new day in America now!

I said, ‘Frankly, Mr. attorney general, it’s not your decision, it’s mine and the committee’s.’ We will have some subpoenas.”

KKKarl Rove’s time is up!

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

March 15, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this

-=-

Can any of thw wingnuts (or anyone else for that matter) just answer one basic question! It really is a simple question, that as of yet has not had a truthful and honest straight up answer from the right wing crowd!

Question: Why did we invade Iraq?

Obviously this is a concern for when a major country like ours invades a small country like iraq, then there should be a very good reason for doing so. If China invaded Taiwan, we would want them to explain their actions now wouldn’t we?

So once again - please tell me the absolutly logical reason of:

Why did we invade Iraq?

Thomas/PNAC

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

Why not gadem, because it doesn’t fit within your sentiments on the subject?

No Woe Ho, it is also telling that you did not address a single point of my post, but tried to distract with questions of your own. I guess it is a symptom of someone who doesn’t like any good news and wants to focus on more of the bad?

By Walt

March 15, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this

Scooter Sends:

“HERE ARE THE FACTS: There were indeed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq (Saddam used them on his own people). “

I may work with this one nonsensical post the rest of the day.

Saddam did gas Kurds (whom he hardly thought of as “his” people) in 1988.

By 2002 his WMD stocks were nil and so was his ability to produce more.

Despite what Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and others said — and they knew it was false — the Iraqi nuclear program was moribund after 1993.

Shame on you for being fooled by these horrible people.

You are not a citizen of this country. You are just a resident.

Walt

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 9:21 AM | Link to this

By The Peoples for a Nuked’ Amerika’ Century~! March 15, 2007 9:08 AM Question: Why did we invade Iraq?

Sure, General Dullard, here you go:

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

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By No Woe Ho

March 15, 2007 9:21 AM | Link to this

There’s a new term being used on left wing radio - “scootered”.

Don’t let yourself get scootered!

Scooter is trying to “scooter” us.

Got to scoot….

By Walt

March 15, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

Scooter Sends:

HERE ARE THE FACTS: There were terrorists moving freely within the borders of Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. There were conversations taking place between international terrorists and Iraqi officials before 2003.”

Terrorists moved freely in this country in the same time frame.

And -common-sense- will expose the lies of the Bush Administration.

Saddam was a control freak. He didn’t want rogue elements loose in his country.

Further, there is no -proof- for saying that there were any more than cursory conversations between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Iraq was -contained- it was no threat to us.

Walt

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this

Walt, there may not be a need for you to work on it all day.

“By 2002 his WMD stocks were nil and so was his ability to produce more.” Walt

How did you know for sure Walt?

I especially like the ‘so was his ability to produce more’ part. Did you read the Kay and Duelfer Reports?

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

Walt,

Shame on you for being a Useful Idiot dupe of the Far Left who categorically lie to gullible fools like you.

Please take note of the statements by Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry and others made in 2002 and 2003 when you claim the program was “nil (sic) and void” - not to mention all the statements made in 1998 - 5 years after you claim the program was “moribund”

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

By IN THE NEWS

March 15, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

INFO RELEASED AGAIN TODAY

MEBBE TO MOVE GONZO OFF FRONT PAGES

Al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claimed “responsibility for the 9/11 operation from A to Z,” according to 26 pages of transcripts released from Gitmo by the Pentagon yesterday.

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this

Walt,

Useful Idiot Walt is admitting that there was contact between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

He may get a spanking from the Left for that admission, which is contrary to their persistent claims that there was NO relationship.

Walt,

Watch your back!

By Neo-Con Artist

March 15, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this

Whenever Bush tries to equate our invasion of Iraq with the American Revolution, we all need to remember that in that equation, we are the occupying enemy forces in Iraq now, like the British were here in America:

In early April 1775, the British governor of Boston sent John Howe out to gather intelligence in that hotbed of insurgency now called the western suburbs, but then the Anbar province of its time. Howe met an old man cleaning his rifle who looked too old to hunt game. The old man said he expected foreign soldiers —- “a flock of redcoats” —- would be arriving soon, and he thought they would make good targets. Arrive they did, and with them the American revolution that in many states degenerated into civil war. The British soldiers were mostly of the same race and religion as the people they fought, but they were by then foreigners, and eight years later they were gone.

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this

Walt, did the UN Sanctions change Saddam’s intentions and was the UN going to be in Iraq until Saddam’s death?

How many countries has the UN actually “contained”?

By @@

March 15, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

Thomas:

Can you explain to us why all the leftists are pushing for our intervention in Darfur?

By Walt

March 15, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

Luckodull Sends:

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

I usually just ignore you. What you post is just beyond ridiculous.

Congress, and Sen. Clinton were derelict in their duty.

That is well known.

There was plenty of evidence available contrary to what Sen. Clinton spouted.

But the entity that had the ultimate responsibility —knew— that there was no threat.

Iraq was contained fully by 2002. It was no threat to us.

The Neo-cons -knew- that.

You have also lost your right to call yourself a citizen of this country.

Shame on you.

Walt

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

No argument with Walt… Donut can’t read— here’s what Walt posted:

“Despite what Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and others said — and they knew it was false — the Iraqi nuclear program was moribund after 1993.”

-and-

“Further, there is no -proof- for saying that there were any more than cursory conversations between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Iraq was -contained- it was no threat to us.”

Somehow Donut wants to insert the evil name of Saddam into Walt’s post.

Donut— You uneducated hag!

By Walt

March 15, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this

Scoter Sends:

“I especially like the ‘so was his ability to produce more’ part. Did you read the Kay and Duelfer Reports?”

Saddam’s ability to produce WMD in 2002 was nil.

If he had any, he would used them, if he had hidden them, we would have found them.

Shame on you.

You have no more excuse for pushing this line than “Good” Germans had for supporting Hitler.

Walt

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

March 15, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

-=-

AndyDull -

Wrong Answer:

WMD not verified, (or found). No clear and present “imminent” threat to America had been verified. No direct terrorist attacks on America from Iraq had occurred justifying our attack.

Therefore - No clear justification for invading a sovereign country and overthrowing it’s leader in accordance with US and International law and treaty including NATO agreements.

-=-

[INTERNATIONAL LAW ON THE USE OF FORCE Powell’s mission—like that of his colleagues over the past months—was to fit the Bush administration’s case against Saddam Hussein into the U.N. structures governing the use of force as laid out in the U.N. Charter. Whether the United States chooses to continue to pursue this path or not has serious implications for the future of international law and the United Nations.

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).]

-=-

Next answer please??

Why did we invade Iraq?

Thomas/PNAC

By Irish65

March 15, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this

Great Toon, Mike!

I will no longer be reading the comments here, since there are just a few rational ones between the self-congratulatory ones by those (Buy Danish, LuckoDull, etc.) who believe they can sustain their irrational convictions by name calling and reinforcing each others’ lack of facts with inane verbiage.

By IN THE NEWS

March 15, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this

DO AMERICANS LOOK STOOOOPID????

Blog: Drudge spreads ‘big lie’ on Iraq casualties

Internet news site The Drudge Report is passing off Iraq casualty figures from a questionable media outlet as fact, a journalist blogger asserts.

“Any legitimate news that U.S. troop deaths are sharply down, in a way that is statistically significant, would be welcomed with open arms by all,” says Will Bunch, a senior Philadelphia Daily News writer, at his blog Attytood.

“Matt Drudge is running what purports to be just such a story on the top left of his incredibly influentual Web site right now as I write this,” Bunch continues. “The headline reads: ‘Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers…’”

He invites readers to check the source of Drudge’s link. “The article is not from a credible, independent media outlet,” he continues, “but from the Kuwait News Agency (or KUNA). Kuwait is still America’s biggest ally in the Gulf (for obvious reasons) and so the source of the story is a huge tell here.”

The KUNA article credits the launch of new Baghdad security measures as the reason for a 60 percent decline in “the rate of killings of US troops in Iraq.”

Bunch takes issue with a disclaimer in the piece that states, “The statistics excluded US troops killed in other governorates such as Al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salahiddin,” which, he counters with data of his own, misrepresents the story.

By IN THE NEWS

March 15, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

BOUT DAMN TIME

From AP…

CLEVELAND (AP) - Two county election workers were sentenced Tuesday to 18 months in prison for rigging a recount of 2004 presidential election ballots so they could avoid a longer, detailed review.

Jacqueline Maiden, 60, a Cuyahoga County election coordinator who was the board’s third-highest ranking employee, and ballot manager Kathleen Dreamer, 40, each were convicted of a felony count of negligent misconduct of an elections employee.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Peter Corrigan allowed the women to remain free on bail pending appeal, but indicated he thought there was a more widespread conspiracy among election officials.

“I can’t help but feel there’s more to this story,” Corrigan said.

By IN THE NEWS

March 15, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this

More than 80 percent of Fox News viewers had a basic factual misconception about the war in Iraq, which were coincidentally used by the Bush administration to justify their policies at the time. This should not be a surprise, as the leadership of Fox News is heavily tied into the Republican Party apparatus. Let’s start with the top. Roger Ailes learned his trade in 1968 at the feet of the granddaddy of GOP disinformation, Richard Nixon, continuing his career as a high level aide to Ronald Reagan’s 1984 campaign, and crafting George H.W. Bush’s media strategy in 1988, including the infamous Willie Horton ads.

Ailes isn’t the only high level Republican operative in a position of authority at the network. Former “Fox News Sunday” host Tony Snow worked for President George H.W. Bush as a speechwriter, moved to the network, and then became White House press secretary for President George W. Bush.

By Walt

March 15, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this

Scooter Sends:

“HERE ARE THE FACTS: “What happened at Abu Ghraib and, allegedly, Haditha are not the results of some dark policy initiated by some secret White House inner circle.”

No, what happened wsa that Rumsfeld interfered with the programmed flow of troops into theater so that there were not enough Military Police to go around.

Then the 4th Division commanding general told his people to sweep up every male of military age. So the dentention was filled to bursting.

So it was just gross and criminal incompetence and negligence that led to Abu Ghraib.

You have no excuse for not knowing the facts.

Walt

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

GoldieDull,

Looking in the mirror again and projecting your ugliness and ignorance and poor reading comprehension skills onto me?

“THEY knew it was false”? Who is “THEY” Goldilocks. Are you saying that the Clinton Administration’s policy of Regime Change was a fraud, and that every major player in that administration from Albright to Berger to Cohen to Al Gore was complicit in this?

Further, since you all have been arguing that there is not way that Al Qaeda could have been in Iraq because SADDAM HUSSEIN wouldn’t allow it, how is it that you are now saying that Hussein had nothing to do with it?

And just out of curiosity, since you are childishly claiming that “the Country of Iraq” had a meeting with Al Qaeda but Hussein had nothing to do with it, please explain how this works. Do the mountains and rivers do the talking?

As LuckoDull says, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

I’m going out, but I’ll check in later for your always entertaining fairy tale rewrites of history.

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

Walt, I am not going to do the diversionary dance with you. You now say, ‘If he had any, he would used them, if he had hidden them, we would have found them.) If he had what the ability to produce them, he would’ve produced them? Golly, what i have read lead me to believe he had perverted the Oil For Food Program in an effort to erode sanctions and he retained the ability to reconstitute his WMD programs once sanctions were lifted. Does Dual Use Technology sound familiar to you?

You haven’t told us how you knew for sure that Saddam had no WMDs prior to our invasion. Can we expect your sources, or are you going to continue your dance? If you simply continue your dance I will not pay any attention to you until you explain how you knew Saddam had fully disarmed.

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

Walt, I also wanted to thank you for your early comparison of me to naive Hitler enablers. It was brilliant.

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Before I go -

IN THE NEWS,

ARE YOU GOING TO CLAIM THAT THE DEATH THREATS AGAINST MATT DRUDGE ARE MADE UP ALSO?

And one more thing - I personally cannot wait for Karl Rove to testify in front of Leahey.

I do wonder why it is that Leahey “won’t allow” certain lower level employees to testify. Is he afraid of what facts they’ll bring to the table to dispute the spin that these firings were solely about not prosecuting allegations of Democrat election fraud?

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

{{I’m going out, but I’ll check in later for your always entertaining fairy tale rewrites of history.}}

Donut— And then we expect to read the usual BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH from you…

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

{{You haven’t told us how you knew for sure that Saddam had no WMDs prior to our invasion.}}

Scooter, do you need me to find the old links re: the weapons inspectors who reported to Dubya and said “there are NO WEAPONS HERE”, and Dubya told ‘em to leave Iraq… you could do some of your own thankless research, too.

By IN THE NEWS

March 15, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

MADE NO CLAIMS

REPORTED ONLY

YOU ARE GOOD AT PARSING AND FRAMING

DID MATT GET AS MANY AS CINDY?

FAME AINT FOR THE WEAK

By Walt

March 15, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

Scooter Sends:

HERE ARE THE FACTS: Unlike the terrorists and guerrillas, targeting non-combatants is not the modus operandi of our soldiers. And anyone who says otherwise is simply fomenting propaganda for political purposes or repeat-mouthing misinterpretations of realities they basically know nothing about…”

The so-called decapitation strikes against Saddam at the start of the war were nothing but war crimes.

Deaths of innocent Iraqis in the strikes, typically with 2,000 lb. bombs were numerous.

The people who ordered those strikes, given the information they had, are war criminals.

There has also been wide spread use of cluster bomb units in areas where many civilians lived.

That is a war crime too.

Funny how people who are clearly war ciminals get the Presidential MEdal of Freedom in this administration.

Walt

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Donut is still here posting “BLAH BLAH BLAH…”

Leave already, OK!

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

Goldie,

Look, this blogging business is really very simple - unless you’re a simpleton.

Provide FACTS to answer the very simple questions that you were asked.

So far you have provided nothing but a childish diversion.

Nanny nanny boo boo doesn’t cut it outside of your playground. It’s time to make a decision - stay in the sandbox or come out and compete with the grownups.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Later.

By Walt

March 15, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

“By Scooter

March 15, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

Walt, I also wanted to thank you for your early comparison of me to naive Hitler enablers. It was brilliant.”

The shoe fits.

Walt

By @@

March 15, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

Oh well, I’ve attempted ten separate posts here. Some with links, some without. Only one has made it through.

ml, the AJC needs to correct this problem with its’ webserver. It’s a pathetic forum.

Irish 65:

Be sure to come on back under one of your many other names to disparage conservatives posts while offering nothing of value in your own.

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

{{Look, this blogging business is really very simple - unless you’re a simpleton.}}

Boob, looks like the Donut meant to post that ^^^ for you.

By IN THE NEWS

March 15, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

GONNA HAVE TO TRY A PINEAPPLE SPLIT INSTEAD

Chiquita banana knowingly gave terrorists $1.7 million over 7 years, Bush administration gives them a slap on the wrist

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

March 15, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

-=-=-

== Just a little History Lesson for the Danish Bun’ Bun’ ==

[Following the Soviet Union’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 had put the country of Saudi Arabia and its ruling House of Saud at risk as Saudi’s most valuable oil fields (Hama) were within easy striking distance of Iraqi forces in Kuwait,[29] and Saddam’s call to pan-Arab/Islamism could potentially rally internal dissent. In the face of a seemingly massive Iraqi military presence, Saudi Arabia’s own forces were well armed but far outnumbered. Bin Laden offered the services of his mujahedeen to King Fahd to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army.

The Saudi monarch refused bin Laden’s offer,[30] opting instead to allow U.S. and allied forces to deploy on Saudi territory. The deployment angered Bin Laden, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the “land of the two mosques” (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops, he was quickly forced into exile to Sudan and on April 9, 1994 his Saudi citizenship was revoked.[31] His family publicly disowned him. There is controversy over whether and to what extent he continued to garner support from members of his family and/or the Saudi government.[32]

Shortly afterwards, the movement that came to be known as al-Qaeda was formed.]

-=-

By Walt

March 15, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish:

“THEY knew it was false”? Who is “THEY” Goldilocks. Are you saying that the Clinton Administration’s policy of Regime Change was a fraud, and that every major player in that administration from Albright to Berger to Cohen to Al Gore was complicit in this?”

Do you think stupid crap like this adds anything to the conversation?

Walt

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

Walt, are you going to continue your dance, or are you going to explain to us how you knew for certain that Saddam totally disarmed?

The Blog is squashing some of my post so I am once again out.

By Walt

March 15, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

“By Scooter

March 15, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

Walt, I am not going to do the diversionary dance with you. You now say, ‘If he had any, he would used them, if he had hidden them, we would have found them.) If he had what the ability to produce them, he would’ve produced them? Golly, what i have read lead me to believe he had perverted the Oil For Food Program in an effort to erode sanctions and he retained the ability to reconstitute his WMD programs once sanctions were lifted. Does Dual Use Technology sound familiar to you?

You haven’t told us how you knew for sure that Saddam had no WMDs prior to our invasion.”

I know it to a certainty.

I know it because the Brit representative Dearlove went back to Tony Blair and told him:

“The intelligence was being fixed around the policy.”

And you have no excuse not to know it too.

Shame on you.

Walt

By BeenThereDoneThat

March 15, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

Scooter, you’re full of scat! You need to get up off that barstool and clear your Budweiser fogged head. And then tell us just what WMDs Saddam possessed. Conventional chemical munitions deployed by artillery and aerosal are NOT folks, what are considered weapons of mass destruction. And then tell us why no WMDs as defined by DOD were found. Probably the most credible source on this issue was the General in charge of hunting and reporting these WMDs, BG James “Spider” Marks. Out of a massive “target” list that he took to Iraq, he found nothing and sent repeated frustrated communications to that affect. The facts on WMDs have been well established. There were none. Only idiots like you Scoot boy stick to that lame old line. I trust BG Marks a hell of alot more than your wacked out right wing web sources that only attempt to spin that issue to suit their agenda.

By @@

March 15, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

Goldie:

If you need “simpleton” defined look ^^^ up. You’ll find the drool at:

9:02

9:05

9:07

9:40

10:04

10:07

10:08

I would accompany the posting times with YOUR comments that followed, but really, what’s the point?

Your comments were “worthless” then, and they’d be worthless to repeat.

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

March 15, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

-=-

@@

I think the Darfur issue is really sad espoecially at the compassion level. Most of the Left is reacting to the Human issues of Darfur/Sudan.

But I think any military options will have to fall in lockstep with the UN Council and UN forces in Darfur. Sudan and the rebels both have violated several resolutions, and are already being targeted for their parts in the conflict. This is more like Lebannon, rather than Iraq with spillover into neighboring countries.

You broad-brush teh issue as a left and right issue here, when it is definitly not. What do you right wingers want to do about Darfur (if anything?)

Thomas/PNAC

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

Walt, so in a post 9/11 world when ten people tell you a dictator has not disarmed has had contact with terrorist organizations and foreign intelligence services tell conclude the same, you go with the one guy who says otherwise? Not to mention the monitoring agency charged with disarming the dictator cannot account for the whereabouts off all the WMDs, you choose to side with the dictator and the corrupted monitoring program. Interesting.

Walt, all of those people who insisted the US allow the League of Nations “contain” Hitler while he continually violated the Treaty of Versailles and ultimately cost the lives if millions upon millions, do their shoes fit you?

By BeenThereDoneThat

March 15, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

BG Marks deployed to Iraq with a list of 946 sites allegedly containing WMDs. In those NINE HUNDRED FORTY SIX sites, US troops found guess what Scoot? Absolutely NOTHING! It is on record. It is documented and acknowleged. NO WMDs! The only question left now is how do we manage ourselves out of this mess without leaving the entire Middle East in turmoil. Scoot boy, the Bushies screwed up plain and simple. And for the life of me I can’t believe that there are still people in the everyday world that are apologists for this administration. In the everyday going to work world if you give your boss, your company, whatever such faulty intelligence and then follow it with poor implementation and execution, the next thing you are going to hear is YOU’RE FIRED! It is OK to support staying long enough to minimize the damage. John McCain nailed that one the other day, but folks, show some common sense. Quit spinning this war as if it was a model exercise. Being a Bush apologist and spinmeister only makes you appear stupid. Of course in the case of some of you, it proves that you are stupid.

By getalife

March 15, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

The next Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is in Pakistan planning the next attack while we are fighting a civil war in Iraq.

w is ignoring them again.

The Iraq disaster continues while the money wasted is cutting into basic American programs.

China has us by the balls and the total destruction of a superpower is happening right in front of our eyes.

This is w’s legacy.

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

BTDT, how did you know Saddam disposed of all his WMDs?

Getalife are you saying we are not in the mountains of Afghanistan? Getalife, do you admit the tribal mountain regions where the Pushtun Tribes reside and contains the lands of three sovereign nations, may be a little tricky?

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

March 15, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

-=-

Scooter tends to forget that the USA almost sided with Hitler in WW2 as we feared Russia was becoming too powerful. Then that ol’ Pearl Harbor thing happened.

Seriously Scooter -

Invading Iraq without being attacked or a clearly defined imminent threat of us being attacked by Iraq, (such as troops moving into position, or radio intercepts saying we were about to be hit), was in direct violation of international law.

Then to top that off, Bush and Crew tried to re-write international law (The Bush Doctrine), to justify us violating it.

Pre-emptive Defense argument just doesn’t cut it here. It really doesn’t matter if there was evidence of WMD’s or not. It would only justify our invasion if we had evidence that Saddam was about to USE weapons.

Now Scooter, are you willing to claim that The United States is above International Law and International Treaties. Are you ready to pull that trigger?

Think long and hard before you say yes to that one.

On top of that we (the USA) captured Saddam Hussein after we overthrew his government. Then we turned him over to his enemys. Then they executed him.

Now I’ll be the first to say I’m glad he is dead, but in doing so we have once again violated a standard of international law that concerns POW’s and captured leaders.

How many more treaties are we prepared to violate, and how long until International Law is meaningless for both Us - And Them!~

Thomas/PNAC

By Walt

March 15, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

“By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this

Walt,

Useful Idiot Walt is admitting that there was contact between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

He may get a spanking from the Left for that admission, which is contrary to their persistent claims that there was NO relationship.”

That is false and you know it is false.

There was a relationship; it was cursory in nature and everyone knows that.

Why would you post such nonsense?

What needs to be trumeted every day is that Bush turned away from persuing the perpetrators of 9/11 to serve his Neo-con masters.

Walt

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

By BeenThereDoneThat March 15, 2007 10:41 AM The only question left now is how do we manage ourselves out of this mess without leaving the entire Middle East in turmoil.

Uh-huh, let’s see what the libs consider the peaceful serenity of paradise to be, free of American meddling:

Secret police, torture, murders, targeted assassinations, chemical weapons, and the destruction of wetlands (more specifically, the destruction of the food sources of rival groups) were some of the methods Saddam Hussein used to maintain control. The total number of deaths related to torture and murder during this period are unknown, as are the reports of human rights violations. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued regular reports of widespread imprisonment and torture.-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HumanrightsinSaddamHussein’s_Iraq

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

Interesting article about the importance of the ‘08 election:

This is an election that really matters. NBC News recently reported that 73 percent of Americans say they are following it closely, an astounding figure in a country in which it’s a big deal if more than half the electorate votes. Everywhere there’s talk that this may be the most momentous race in our lifetime, that it’s clear that the country is teetering on the cusp of something, good, bad or cataclysmic.

By Walt

March 15, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

“By Scooter

March 15, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

Walt, so in a post 9/11 world when ten people tell you a dictator has not disarmed….”

Ten “people” didn’t say that.

“The intelligence was fixed around the policy.”

Bush lied - our soldiers died.

The -best- thing you can say about Bush attacking Iraq is that he went forward based on a crap shoot.

You don’t run wars on crap shoots.

Shame, shame, shame on you.

Walt

By getalife

March 15, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

Scooter,

I am saying we should had never cut and run from Tora Bora to allow them to escape to Pakistan to invade Iraq.

I am saying they are training in Pakistan for another attack.

Our resources are wasting away in Iraq.

I am saying w’s bs on going after countries who harbor terrorists is bs.

I am saying the Iraq disaster has made the situation worse.

By Comicus

March 15, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

. If it says terror, terror, terror

On your TV, TV, TV

Bush has trouble, trouble, trouble

That wont’ stay hidden, hidden, hidden

Expect terror, terror, terror

On your TV, TV, TV

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

I didn’t know we cut and run from Tora Bora. I thought we embedded elite forces within tribal groups who knew the terrain and pursued the POSSIBILITY that OBL was in the area. Even if OBL is turned into the Martyr he wants to be, what does affect does that have on the larger war on Islamic Extremism?

Walt, are you saying that the intelligence Bush received was fixed to lead him to a conclusion, which would make him misled not a liar? Or, are you saying Bush fixed the intelligence, including foreign intelligence, so he could sell the “lie”?

By IN THE NEWS

March 15, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

” are you saying that the intelligence Bush received was fixed to lead him to a conclusion, which would make him misled not a liar? Or, are you saying Bush fixed the intelligence, including foreign intelligence, so he could sell the “lie”?”

THATS WHAT SUPOENAS ARE FOR…

WHERE ARE THOSE DAMN ITALIAN LETTERS?

By Walt

March 15, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Luckodull Sends:

“Secret police, torture, murders, targeted assassinations, chemical weapons, and the destruction of wetlands (more specifically, the destruction of the food sources of rival groups) were some of the methods Saddam Hussein used to maintain control.”

I don’t care.

I don’t care if they have a blood bath when we leave.

Don’t you think it is more important to close out the perpetrators of 9/11?

Are you just stupid?

Walt

Walt

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

Boy, my multi tasking skills are nearly non-existent today. I will work on fully cutting sections before I paste new text.

By Walt

March 15, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

Scooter Sends:

“Walt, are you saying that the intelligence Bush received was fixed to lead him to a conclusion, which would make him misled not a liar? Or, are you saying Bush fixed the intelligence, including foreign intelligence, so he could sell the “lie”?”

The lies were ginned up in the office of the Vice President.

They were as lurid as possible and they bore no resemblence to reality.

Why on earth did you interject that pre-war intell BS into a thread about Gays in the Military, any way?

Walt

By jacksonwolff

March 15, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

Damn Walt, did you forget to take your fiber this morning?

someone sure has you riled up.

don’t sink to their level.

By @@

March 15, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

Well at least Walt is honest. “He doesn’t care if there’s a bloodbath after we leave Iraq”.

Apparently you’re Democratic leaders cared at one time, now they’ve changed their minds AGAIN. They don’t care now.

I haven’t been able to post any links, so look to the source if you want.

Democrats are now pushing for setting a timetable for withdrawal. The same Democrats who said this earlier:

Senior Democrats’ statements regarding a timeline for pulling out troops:

Sen. Reid said in January 2005: “As for setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that’s not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don’t want us there, and it doesn’t work well to do that.”

Clinton said in September 2005: “I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don’t think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you.”

Biden said in March 2005: It is not an easy process. And I think once that is smelled as the option, then I think you’ll find it will degenerate quickly in the sectarian violence, every man for himself, and the conclusion that will be achieved will be, I think, a Lebanon in 1985. And God knows where it goes from there.”

Source:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200703/POL20070314d.html

Walt, I don’t believe the American people have become as “uncaring” as you and your leaders. I’d be willing to bet on it. If we have, then we’re in sad shape.

By Walt

March 15, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

“someone sure has you riled up.”

I always get upset when I think about the treason committed by the presdient and vice president.

And there is no excuse to still be parroting it 3-4 years after it happened and has been thoroughly exposed.

Walt

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Walt, I interject it because I am sick of seeing people be lead by the media to a conclusion that Bush LIED and forming a representative government in Iraq is a lost cause. If you would tell me how exactly the Vice-Presidents office influenced the findings of foreign intelligence services, I would appreciate it.

Did Dick Cheney work with Saddam during the Reagan Administration to ensure Saddam would not cooperate with the UN and never disclose his WMD Programs to them? I know he did work with Saddam when the big fish to fry was the Ayatollah Khomeini (sp).

By Walt

March 15, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

“Walt, I don’t believe the American people have become as “uncaring” as you and your leaders. I’d be willing to bet on it. If we have, then we’re in sad shape.”

If they want to have a blood bath, let them.

When you hears the pols bleating on TV about us staying lest there be a blood bath, it is just a smoke screen to keep our guys there to fool people like you into thinking we are fighting the terrorists.

When did it become our responsibility to break up every conflict on the planet?

And we can’t afford it.

And - if they have a blood bath it probably helps us on a macro level.

And - Israel would love it.

Walt

By getalife

March 15, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

The argument for the Iraq disaster is over. It is an admitted mistake. We are now just trying to save the Iraqis from themselves.

We broke it, we own it. Powell tried to warn w but he should given him an Iraqi history book.

By Walt

March 15, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

“By Scooter

March 15, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Walt, I interject it because I am sick of seeing people be lead by the media to a conclusion that Bush LIED…”

Bush did lie. Cheney lied. Rice lied. Powell lied. Rumsfeld lied. Feith lied. Wolfowitz lied.

They all belong in prison.

Walt

By Midori

March 15, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

{{{And there is no excuse to still be parroting it 3-4 years after it happened and has been thoroughly exposed.}}}}

amen, Walt.

@@, the Clue Phone is ringing….

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

{{Or, are you saying Bush fixed the intelligence, including foreign intelligence, so he could sell the “lie”?}}

Scooter, a better description is “manipulated” or “cherry-picked” the intel… that’s what Cheney & Co. did to support their desire to invade Iraq. They had the desire to invade since the 90’s and were just waiting for that opportune moment.

Cheney & Dubya were also given plenty of reports that said Saddam had no WMD, and they chose to push those reports aside.

That’s the criminality of what they did — if they wanted to invade another country, they’d better be damned sure of the info they have to support that invasion, and this administration did not have that assurance, obviously!

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

@@, forgetting about statements like that is easy for the public when the “media” doesn’t equally critique all politicians statements. You know, you can say Saddam is making a mockery of the inspections when Clinton is ramping up for an attack (which I agreed with) and then five years later say we should allow the UN more time. The public will forget the UN Inspectors had been kicked out for those five years. The general public will form their opinions based on whatever view of the world is given to them by the mainstream “media”.

By getalife

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

The chief justice in Pakistan has been detained by the President.

The lawyers are rioting in Pakistan (geez.)

An unstable Pakistan is very bad for our security. The have the nukes OBL wants to use against us.

Geez.

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

{{Apparently you’re Democratic leaders cared at one time, now they’ve changed their minds AGAIN. They don’t care now.}}

Boob, we all CARE about the pending bloodbath, but it’s nothing something that our troops can prevent at this point.

If we leave tomorrow, the Iraqis will be killing each other for power. If we wait 5 years to leave, the Iraqis will still be killing each other for power when that “vacuum” has been created. So why should we put off the inevitable any longer? Why should our troops have to be killed in the process of THEIR CIVIL WAR???

Even the Pentagon reports coming out this week say that the conditions in Iraq warrant officially calling it a CIVIL WAR, just like the commanders on the ground have been saying for a long time!

If only you delusional 30% of Americans would face the reality of the situation… The time for cheerleading is over!

By Walt

March 15, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

Scooter Sends:

“Walt, all of those people who insisted the US allow the League of Nations “contain” Hitler while he continually violated the Treaty of Versailles and ultimately cost the lives if millions upon millions, do their shoes fit you?”

Did you know that when Hitler attended his first Nazi Party member he was there as a police informer?

The US rejected the Treaty of Versailles well before Hitler came to power.

You can’t blame the US for thinking Europeans could run their own affairs.

Walt

By Dusty

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

There are so many “loose cannons” on this blog, no use to waste time here. I will leave it to the few cool heads like @@, Scooter, and Luckodull to make some sense.

Maybe later Curtis will realize that demanding retreat is not called patriotic. Or maybe Walt will stop saying everything in American government administration is treasonous or that Bush and Vice President Cheney are both liars. The absurdity of it all really gets tiresome.

Have fun. I have better things to do.

By Midori

March 15, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Ladies and Gentlemen, meet the REAL Harriet Miers

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

Walt addressing one of several questions does not, in itself, address all questions so here; If you would tell me how exactly the Vice-Presidents office influenced the findings of foreign intelligence services, I would appreciate it.

Did Dick Cheney work with Saddam during the Reagan Administration to ensure Saddam would not cooperate with the UN and never disclose his WMD Programs to them? I know he did work with Saddam when the big fish to fry was the Ayatollah Khomeini (sp).

Getalife, just because you have chosen to narrow your view of the world to liberal websites and come to your own conclusions does not mean everyone agrees with you. You are not addressing my questions either.

Goldie, how many reports said Saddam had accounted for ALL his WMDs and can you provide me with some of those documents? Do you have some sort of percentages? Do you acknowledge that Bush kept George Tenet on staff, presumably because he worked on intelligence for the previous administration, and Tenet told Bush WMDs were a “slam dunk”? Is the previous President’s Director of the CIA to be ignored after 9/11 because there were some personnel that disagreed with them?

Goldie, you know that probably every leader who has ever taken a country to war has cherry picked the intel to support their decision. It is unrealistic to expect a leader to take you to war, but first tell the electorate all the reasons not to.

Saddam never met his burden of proof, nor cooperated with inspectors, but the patriots choose to demonize their leader and insist the UN should’ve been left in charge.

By jacksonwolff

March 15, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

The reality is that these people have been fighting for this patch of land for thousands of years. They will probably be fighting for it for thousands more.

How arogant are we to think we can solve a problem that has consumed this region since before Christ was there.

By Midori

March 15, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

don’t let the door hit ya!!

By getalife

March 15, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

Saddam was bluffing, he was insane found in a spider hole.

He is history. The Dems who voted for the Iraq disaster say it is a mistake. Period.

Move on, the threat is now in Pakistan.

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

Even the Ray-gun admirers know that the wheels have come off for the Repugs:

The Iraq war has challenged the conservative movement’s custodianship of America’s place in the world, as well as its claim to competence. Reagan restored a sense of America’s mission as the “city on a hill” that would be a light to the world and helped bring about the defeat of what he very undiplomatically christened “the evil empire.” After 9/11 Bush found his own evil empire, in fact a whole axis of evil. But he hasn’t produced Reagan’s results: North Korea is nuclear, Iran swaggers across the world stage, Iraq is a morass. “Conservatives are divided on the Iraq war, but there is a growing feeling it was a mistake,” says longtime conservative activist and fund-raiser Richard Viguerie. “It’s not a Ronald Reagan�type of idea to ride on our white horse around the world trying to save it militarily. Ronald Reagan won the cold war by bankrupting the Soviet Union. No planes flew. No tanks rolled. No armies marched.”

Bye bye!

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Getalife, I have been focusing on Pakistan for a while. How do you think we should address the Pushtun tribal region that crosses the borders of three sovereign nations? Also, how do you know Saddam was bluffing and even if he was how do you know he had no intentions of eroding sanctions by buying influence in the Security council. My findings show that once sanctions were eroded through the Oil for Food Scandal, Saddam had every intention of making his alleged bluff into a reality.

Also, getalife politicians will say anything to get their hands on the power we have given to them. The day I start unfailingly accepting everything politicians say is the day I will be no more.

By @@

March 15, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

You liberals appear to be particularly “unhinged” today. You are contradicting yourselves with every post.

Basically, you’re a waste of anybody’s time here. I know how concerned all of you are that our efforts have missed the “true target”.

Try to use your heads and quit responding to your emotions…

Al Zawahiri has taken other measures that indicate that Bin Laden is either dead or no longer in control.

He has replaced key commanders of al-Qaeda linked groups, including in Iraq and Algeria, by Egyptians close to himself and with no history of ties to Bin Laden.

“You could say the Egyptian mafia has taken over,” says one expert. Al Zawahiri has acknowledged Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taleban leader, as Emir Al Momeneen (commander of the faithful) and caliph of a putative Islamic empire. This ends Bin Laden’s position as the “shaikh” and ultimate authority for jihadists.

Try reading between the lines from numerous sources, and I’m not talking about the “lines” you’re snorting on that liberal mirror of yours, OR…….

Buy into the “myth” like a good little jihadists that you are….

Some conspiracy theorists, however, suggest that he may be in Iran, Yemen, or even the US under an assumed identity!

The man maybe dead, but “the myth lives”.

Source: http://www.bruneitimes.com.bn/details.php?shape_ID=23928

I’m out of here for two reasons. The server BLOWS and so do the liberals’ skills.

By jacksonwolff

March 15, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

Weather Bush and Cheney lied or not-I DONT CARE!!

Weather there were WMD in Iraq or not-I DONT CARE!!

What I do care about is my 19 year old cousin who is deployed in Bagdad.

What I do care about is the HUGE debt that continuing this war will create. A debt the my great-grandchildren will be saddled with.

Smart business men follow the Kenny Rodgers theory, Know when to hold them, know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away, know when to run.

What’s telling is all the folks who hide behind the Bible, knowing full well the Revolations tells us that there will be no peace in the middle east (Isrel) untill Jesus comes back, so why are we trying to make a peace that CANNOT exist untill the Messiah’s return?

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

{{Goldie, how many reports said Saddam had accounted for ALL his WMDs and can you provide me with some of those documents? Do you have some sort of percentages?}}

Scoot— did you do your thankless research regarding what the weapons inspectors reported back to Dubya? No?

Scoot, the inspectors were THERE and Dubya told them to leave — you can try to conflate and spin all you want, but the truth is there were no WMDs in Iraq in 2003… it didn’t matter to your guy Dubya — he was invading anyway!

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

{{Buy into the “myth” like a good little jihadists that you are….}}

Your hatred for America is palpable, Boob$!

By Midori

March 15, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

Yeah, @@

If anyone knows anything about being “unhinged”, it’s you.

By @@

March 15, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

Goldie:

I’m smiling as I type this.

You’re envy for all things “CON$ERVATIVE” is obvious, even though “ALL” conservatives don’t have what you de$ire.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

By Daniel

March 15, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Lucko strikes again! Speaking of sex and politics. There is a marvelous movie: Le Conformiste, by Bertolucci from, I think 1969 or 1970. It tracks the link between weak kneed awkward sexuality and fascist politics. It is set in Italy near the demise of Mussolini. It explores just how weak people are attracted to the appearance of strength and power fascism offers.

By @@

March 15, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

OMG, this is just too hilariously juvenile…..

(((By Midori March 15, 2007 12:49 PM)))

(((Yeah, @@)))

I guess RW was right about you. You never did and never will grow up.

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

Daniel, I saw “The Conformist” back in the 70’s and it was fabulous! Was it Bertolucci that also directed “The Conversation” — another great flick!

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

{{You’re envy for all things “CON$ERVATIVE” is obvious}

Boob$, you’re delusional. There’s not much of anything your current ideology has to offer.

Buh-bye Repugs!

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

Goldie no need to conflate the issue, “the left” is doing a fine job of that. Sure the inspectors were finally allowed back in after months of rangling with the UN Security Council and Saddam producing a 5000 page document of what was widely acknowledged to be BS, but was supposed to be his final chance to disclose the whereabouts of his WMDs. But, nothing led me to believe that Saddam was going to change his actions or alter his ambitions. Either you have a great trust in the UN’s ability to disarm tyrants or you have faith the UN had changed Saddam’s historical goals of regional dominance through the use of WMDs. Wherever your faith was it does not seem it was with the US. It is also nice to see how the left belittled conservatives who questioned their patriotism, but it is all good and dandy for liberals to do the same to conservatives.

I’m sure some patriots will be quick to reinforce the terrorists recruitment by stating it was a war for oil, or our soldiers are cold blooded murderers, or Bush is creating a world empire, etc…

Peace out! It will be the death of this nation.

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

By Walt March 15, 2007 11:39 AM I don’t care if they have a blood bath when we leave.

That’s nice to know.

Problem is, we were talking about a blood bath HERE if we leave, you blooming idiot.

It’s not like they don’t know how to get here.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

Sorry Jacksonwolff, The deficit your grandchildren will be paying for? Might that be a little of the politics of fear? After all, when I was a young’n during the 80’s everyone was saying the same about Reagan’s deficit. Well, that deficit was projected to be paid off about now, assuming the world was a peaceful place until that projected date. All it took was the over inflated economic boom of the dot com era, some budget cuts (I like those) and some tax increases.

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this

By Daniel March 15, 2007 12:56 PM It is set in Italy near the demise of Mussolini. It explores just how weak people are attracted to the appearance of strength and power fascism offers.

Who should no better than you, right Danny, Sieg Heil!

Daniella’s not a storm trooper anymore she’s a Geritol grenadier.

You miss the good old, well, not talking about your age here, I meant back in the 30’s when you got to goose step through all those Jewish neighborhoods, kicking down those peoples doors.

The government took care of your every need, didn’t they, as long as you kept stuffing Jews in the oven.

Little punkas-s.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By getalife

March 15, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

Good for you. Keep watching Pakistan, it is becoming very unstable there.

I read w is for a military coup to oust their President.

Of course, he has been dead wrong on his geopolitical policies and think this is just another major mistake.

By RE

March 15, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

Scooter, we have not paid off the reagan debts yet, or for that matter the WW2 debts yet.

We are just putting it on the credit card for “Future generations” to deal with

By jacksonwolff

March 15, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

Scooter- no, I ment the National Debt. I think it is financial suicide to CUT taxes and raise spending. If I did that around my house, the mortgage company would throw me out.

I am a fiscal conservative. but even I think that cutting taxes in a time of war is not the wisest course of action. Wars are expensive, we all know that, so if we have to go to war, then that is the price we pay for freedom.

If we would cut funding to alot of the pork maybe our children will have a chance to enjoy the american dream, instead of paying back China for the Iraq war.

By Daniel

March 15, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this

Andy is the best freak show the democrats could ever imagine. Lucko is running consistently in the low 90’s and high 80’s. Webb beat Allen. The demo’s control congress. If I were a democratic strategist I would invent a whack-job like Andy to spew his nonsense. He scares the average person and children.

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

RE, then why do I constantly here about the balanced budgets Clinton handed to Bush. I know the budget was never actually balanced, but was projected to be balanced. Never the less, when it is opportune for “the left” to promote the “balanced budget” turned into “unprecedented deficits” argument they have no problem doing so.

Am I missing something?

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

{{If we would cut funding to alot of the pork maybe our children will have a chance to enjoy the american dream, instead of paying back China for the Iraq war.}}

Good post, Jackson!

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

By Daniel March 15, 2007 1:27 PM Lucko is running consistently in the low 90’s and high 80’s.

What the hell has that got to do with anything?

Limbaugh draws more of an audience then C B.S, PMSNBC, A B.S, and CNN put together, are you libs now going to hang on every word he says?

You’re an idiot.

And a liar.

Sieg Heil!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Daniel

March 15, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

Scooter: As a matter of principal: shouldn’t the government live within its means? Isn’t that what you and I do with our family? Plus, when they borrow and spend like mad it creates a false sense of security. Government is enormous, bloated and inefficient. Whatever happened to small, skillful, effective government? Are we to be hgappy because now republican hacks are on the federal payroll instead of the democratic ones? Please explain. Thank you.

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this

{{You’re an idiot.

And a liar.

Sieg Heil!}}

Apparently Dull is saluting himself.

By Daniel

March 15, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

Goldie: You hit that nail on its head! Thanks. See how he is tied into Le Conformiste? Bertolucci was a genius! Weak, awkward and powerless he attempts to take from us to strengthen himself. He’s really looking into a mirror. Thanks.

By Blackadder

March 15, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

I’m almost convinced that Andy is a Luckovich staffer who is here just to stir things up. How else can you explain the absurdity and nastiness of his posts? He also posts when the blog is supposed to be closed. I’ve inquired several times to the AJC about how this is possible and have never received a response.

That’s why I scroll past those posts. They don’t deserve any attention.

By RE

March 15, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

We were seeing surpluses under clinton. A balanced budget is not what we need, it is a budget where we pay off debt. We have had some national emergencies where spending more than we take in is warrented, Katrina, 9-11…etc. But what we are doing is to budget out a constant state of debt. This debt will cripple this country. Whoever the next president is is going to have a very hard time, interest rates will not stay as low as they are now and when they rise up into moderate ranges like 8-9%, our debt payments are going to skyrocket. It will be the largest portion of the budget.

take a look at this breakdown

Our money goes to social security, HHS (medicare, medicade)the DOD and our debt. I am certain HHS and Social security will increase dramaticly in the next 15 years. the DOD should remain roughly the same and decrease as a percentage. The debt is going to rise as fast or faster than any other department. How are we going to pay for that?

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

Getalife, what about that tribal region that crosses three borders of sovereign nations? How do you propose we handle that diplomatic problem?

Criticism based on hindsight is the land of fools. Look around. So, how about some suggestions?

Jacksonwolff, have you seen the many reports that show government revenues increasing after the government started letting the producers keep more of their money to invest in the American economy? I mean the stock market was down to around 7000 and consumer confidence was shattered by 9/11. In addition, Bush had to deal with all of those CEO’s becoming corrupt when he was inaugurated. Seems like it may have been a time to consider taking out a second mortgage to preserve the American family’s existence

Isn’t it funny how the main drains on the US budget are Medicare and Social Security, or political initiatives that encourage dependence on government? As we hand over more and more personal responsibility to government there will be less and less money to defend our freedom. Now we have Bush’s Prescription Drug entitlement that will compound the problems in the future. But really, do people pay cash for everything, including opening a business? I personally am glad that other nations think we are worth investing in.

Daniel, absolutely on all counts. unfortunately once a free person transfers responsibility for dependence there is no turning back. We could cut many programs and I would be all for it, but it would be portrayed as killing the “less fortunate”. also we could institute the FairTax and harness the consumption taxes of all America’s wealthiest who hide their money in off shore accounts, or tourist, or illegal immigrants, or shade tree mechanics. It would also absolve the poor of all payroll taxes. I don’t have time to discuss it but it deserves a fair shake, not knee jerk criticisms

You all continue on with your Bush lied jargon, it really doesn’t display a high level of deductive reasoning.

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

RE, my understanding was those “surpluses” were projected before the recession and CEO scandals. I never saw that they actually came to fruition.

Was the past debt sold to adjust as interest rates adjust, or was it sold at the interest rate that existed at the time it was issued? what I am getting at is, if we get back to living within our means before the interest rates increase the increases will have no affect on past debts.

By Midori

March 15, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

@@,

I guess life is right about “you”.

You really are a blooming idiot.

By jacksonwolff

March 15, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

Scooter, as I said before, as to the question of weather or not bush lied, Rhett Butler said it best “Frankly my dear I don’t give a damn”

And as for the Fair Tax, I have to agree with you. I have read the book and find it very enlightening.

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

By Blackadder March 15, 2007 1:44 PM I’m almost convinced that Andy is a Luckovich staffer who is here just to stir things up. How else can you explain the absurdity and nastiness of his posts?

This^^ coming from Polly the “newcomer,” the looney that put “absurd” on the map, of all people.

They skip over my posts but yet somehow know that they’re “nasty.”

They can’t tell the truth about anything, can they?

Sieg Heil, Danny!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By RE

March 15, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

The bonds are traded daily and adjust accordingly so the rate will be projected on the entire debt.

Still don’t like the fair tax, more for flat tax and elimination of all payroll taxes. Straight percentage, no breakdown into fico etc. Eliminate the payroll taxes so employers do not have to pay to have employees.

But we have had this discussion before.

I posted to you yesterday about a show on air america, Tom HArtman. Check him out sometime. First time I heard a lot of the ideas he talks about.

How about instead of raising taxes, we put tariffs on goods coming in from China?

By Blackadder

March 15, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this

RE - when is Thom Hartman on? I thought he was supposed to take Franken’s spot but they have Ed Schultz on then. Ed is ok but his voice is a little too similar to Limbaugh’s for my taste. I still listen but it is rather unsettling.

By Midori

March 15, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

Bush shut down investigation of Gonzales

By KeepOnKeepinOn

March 15, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

Scooter, you and the 25% of ideologues and Bush apologists that are left in this country can continue to believe the BS that you are stinking the place up with today if you choose. Example of the blind leading the blind and lemmings following the pied piper right over the cliff. Fortunately you and those of your ilk are goners. You have so marginalized yourself with your irrational logic that nothing will get through those thick neanderthal skulls of yours. Anyway, I do hope you enjoy the view from the outside looking in.

By jacksonwolff

March 15, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this

By Blackadder

March 15, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this

RE - when is Thom Hartman on? I thought he was supposed to take Franken’s spot but they have Ed Schultz on then. Ed is ok but his voice is a little too similar to Limbaugh’s for my taste. I still listen but

Funny you say that, I caught a few minutes of Ed Schultz the other day and thought it WAS Limbaugh. My first thought was that I had driven into Bizaro World.

By RE

March 15, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

He is on from 12-3, you can go to the AA site to stream it form the net. Yeah, I am not a big fan of Shultz. Tom is an aquired taste, he isn’t funny, doesn’t yell, but man he is pretty bright and will debate with anyone. He had a guy from Cato institute on yesterday talking about debt and taxes. He got the guy to admit it is a bad policy to increase debt except in the case of national emergency or infrastructure building.

I like him

By Walt

March 15, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

Luckodull Sends:

“Problem is, we were talking about a blood bath HERE if we leave, you blooming idiot.”

Total nonsense.

Stop and think.

What has happened in Iraq that would have prevented 9/11?

15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. OBL was in Afghanistan.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed was in Pakistan.

Iraq was not involved.

What would keep another 15-20 terrorists from doing a mass casualiy attack here?

Nothing that is happening in Iraq, for damn sure.

Thing is, every dirt poor cousin in Iraq can take pot shots at our people. And the type of people who speak English and get into this country -are- here or can get in due to factors that have nothing to do with Iraq.

What we are doing is p** away billions of dollars in Iraq that could be spent here to improve security.

You are so freaking scared of Al Qaeda — that is what should worry you.

And when al Qaeda does another mass casualty attack -here- , a lot of our first responders are going to be in Iraq or will have gotten out of the military/NG because they simply can’t stand the pace/ are wounded, maimed or dead.

Walt

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

PNAC,

Please advise what point you were attempting to make with your Wiki links to Bin Laden.

Walt,

The question I asked Goldie was really very simple. Who are “THEY”? If you’re going to insert yourself in that thread, fine - answer the question, please.

Next, please advise what is “crap” about Clinton’s Regime Change policy?

As for you assertion that everybody acknowledges the contacts between Hussein and Al Qaeda, that is demonstrably false. The Parrot Choir has been denying it for as long as I have been here, as have untold “journalists” and LW pundits.

{{{By getalife

March 15, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

Scooter,

I am saying we should had never cut and run from Tora Bora to allow them to escape to Pakistan to invade Iraq. I am saying they are training in Pakistan for another attack.}}}

Ambassador Getalife,

For the past year you have been demanding that we look for Bin Laden in the Hindu Kush Mountains of Afghanistan.

Now you’re saying they all went to Pakistan and that’s where we need to be. Gosh, it’s a good thing we didn’t follow your advice.

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

Tariffs are punishment to prevent what is seen as bad. I prefer incentives to encourage good behavior. Like removing all corporate taxation on the processes of production and recollecting those lost taxes at the final sale of the item. It is more transparent and would be a great incentive for business to relocate within our borders, thereby producing jobs.

Jacksonwolff, there is one flaw in Boortz and Linder’s presentation of the plan, unfortunately I will not disclose that flaw in this forum amongst certain professional critics.

RE, We don’t get Air America here any longer. I used to like Jerry Springer and thought Randi Rhodes was the definition of “hate” radio, like Michael Savage.

By IN THE NEWS

March 15, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this

Shortly before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush last year on whether to shut down a Justice Department inquiry regarding the administration’s warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, Gonzales learned that his own conduct would likely be a focus of the investigation, according to government records and interviews. Bush personally intervened to sideline the Justice Department probe in April 2006 by taking the unusual step of denying investigators the security clearances necessary for their work.

By IN THE NEWS

March 15, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

REMEMBER TRAPPED RATS GET DANGEROUS… THERE ARE CRAZED NEO_CONS EVERYWHERE

Anthrax Scare At Edward’s Campaign Office The News and Observer | The white powder in an envelope discovered Wednesday at the national headquarters of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards did not contain anthrax, a Chapel Hill police spokeswoman said today.

The campaign office was evacuated Wednesday afternoon after a worker there opened the envelope. The office was reopening today, police spokeswoman Jane Cousins said. She was unable to say what the powder was made of but expected to have more information later today.

By WHO CARES

March 15, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

The latest hit on the economy are real estate foreclosures. Bush’s gift and probably Bush’s fault if your a braindead liberal.

By Midori

March 15, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

Black Adder,

I’m listening to Thom right now.

here’s some links to his show

By RE

March 15, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

Tariffs are protectionist, what I can’t figure out is why it is bad to protect the US economy.

As a broad look, what do we do in this country anymore. Most every job is now a service related job (doctors, lawyers, computer techs, finance, insurance..etc) . We no longer produce anything except those things we cannot export, such as food and housing, and in those cases we hire on illegal immigrants. I would not mind slapping a tariff on chinese goods if it reopens a few factories in North Carolina. Get rid of Nafta and maybe cars will be built in detroit again.

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

By Walt March 15, 2007 2:26 PM What has happened in Iraq that would have prevented 9/11? 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. OBL was in Afghanistan. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was in Pakistan. Iraq was not involved.

Gosh, I wonder what the citizens of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan have in common, gee, I wonder.

Isn’t it a bit telling that these candy a-ss liberals are in here nattering on and on about how Conservatism is washed up, all the while they talk about Air America, a station that had to PAY to get any airtime.

What a bunch of saps.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Walt

March 15, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

Luckodull Sends:

“Next, please advise what is “crap” about Clinton’s Regime Change policy?”

What is crap is that these PNAC nut jobs in 1995 pitched exactly the same plan to Clinton that we executed in 2003.

Clinton was smart enough to see that it was a very bad idea.

One of the main canards of idiots who support Bush is that Clinton had the same policy and that is factually incorrect.

Walt

By Walt

March 15, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this

“By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

By Walt March 15, 2007 2:26 PM What has happened in Iraq that would have prevented 9/11? 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. OBL was in Afghanistan. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was in Pakistan. Iraq was not involved.

Gosh, I wonder what the citizens of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan have in common, gee, I wonder.”

If you are an emotional grown up, which is in dispute, the light bulb will come on eventually.

We have currently no troops in the areas from which the 9/11 plot sprang; Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan/Pakistan.

And we can’t put pressure on those areas because the useless war in Iraq is taking all our assets.

—Nothing— that is going on in Iraq would prevent an attack here.

I know you are scared out of your socks by Al Qaeda, so maybe you don’t want to face this unpleasant — or maybe — this inconvient truth.

Walt

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

By Walt March 15, 2007 2:39 PM Luckodull Sends: “Next, please advise what is “crap” about Clinton’s Regime Change policy?”

Keep slugging away dullard, maybe someday you’ll get something right:

By {{{{{{Buy Danish}}}}}}} March 15, 2007 9:59 AM Are you saying that the Clinton Administration’s policy of Regime Change was a fraud

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this

{{Clinton was smart enough to see that it was a very bad idea.}}

Walt, some of these extremist loonies try to equate “Clinton thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs too!” with the fact that W invaded an unarmed country.

President Clinton was smart — he knew that the intel about Saddam was conflicted. Some analysts warned that there was no evidence of active WMD programs. And even if he did think that Saddam may have WMDs, he DID NOT invade and occupy that country based on what he THOUGHT was true.

Big difference between having a president with smarts (like Clinton) and having one who is arrogant and lacking the brains to lead America!

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

KeepOnKeepinOn, your post shows great mental agility and is a clear display that you are no lemming. No sir, your post indicates great independent thought and resembles nothing I have ever seen/sarc.

RE, this is my last post and I ask for clarification. You typed; “The bonds are traded daily and adjust accordingly so the rate will be projected on the entire debt.”

That is my understanding, but; are the interest rates on bonds sold a year ago adjusted to match current interest rates? Or, do they remain at the interest rate they were sold? I think once a bond is sold for an interest rate, that specific bond is “locked in” at that rate.

Perhaps you are saying that today’s interest rate will be projected onto the entire debt, no matter what interest rates apply to past debt? If so, that sounds like another highly dubious practice of government “accounting” (AKA government deceit).

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

By Walt March 15, 2007 2:46 PM If you are an emotional grown up, which is in dispute, the light bulb will come on eventually.

Am I the only one in the world that knows the Middle East is full of Muslim males and their radical clerics, from one end to the other?

I mean, we can stick our heads up our as-ses, you proved that already, but what does that accomplish?

Here’s a little clue for you, sap:

Al-Qaeda in Iraq

Not in New York, no, in IRAQ.

Where we kill them.

Duh.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By hterrya

March 15, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this

They trolls seemed to have have gained control of this thread today.

Solution?

It is time to leave them to their hatred of Mike Luckovich and those who appreciate his cartoons.

So, I recommend that those of us who disagree with Scooter, @@, LuckoDull, Dusty, Buy Danish, ad nauseam, and who support Mike, simply vote “Yes” to the question, “Do you like today’s cartoon?” and leave the pitiful 10% of the circle-jerking trolls who HATE Mike’s cartoon to their intense sexual love-in.

My guess is, they won’t even notice that we’ve left. NeoCon circle jerkers are SO self focused!

Under the bridge, NeoCon circle-jerking trolls!

By Blackadder

March 15, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

RE - I listen on XM and they play Schultz at noon. I’ll have to get on Air America’s site and see what the deal is.

By Walt

March 15, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

Goldie Sends:

“President Clinton was smart — he knew that the intel about Saddam was conflicted. Some analysts warned that there was no evidence of active WMD programs. And even if he did think that Saddam may have WMDs, he DID NOT invade and occupy that country based on what he THOUGHT was true.”

Goldie,

I think the Neo-cons were watching too much History Channel.

They have these neaty cool shows about the M-1 tank and the Blackhawk heliocopter and all that.

So the Neo-cons looked at our convetional military and they noted the demise of the USSR and they thought it would be a neaty cool idea to bulldoze our way through world affairs with our neaty cool hi-tech military.

Problem is that our military is — blunt instrument is not even the right term — our military is almost useless for fighting the non-state entities that make up the bulk of the bad guys in the 21st centuries.

In fact, all our military can do is blunder around and create more enemies.

Which is exactly what we do when we targeted restaurants with 2,000 lb bombs and shoot cluster bombs into residential neighborhoods.

The proof that the Neo-cons thought they could apply firepower to problems that require diplomacy is in the refusal of the Bush Administration to talk to Iran and Syria when our guys were getting killed every day in Iraq.

Neo-Cons are BIG TOUGH MEN. They dodged combat in their day, but by golly, they are tough now!

Shame on the people they can still play for fools.

Walt

By RE

March 15, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this

Trying to find out Scooter, I am not sure.

By Midori

March 15, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

Black Adder,

scroll up to see my post containing AAR links

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

By hterrya March 15, 2007 2:57 PM It is time to leave them to their hatred of Mike Luckovich and those who appreciate his cartoons.

Cut and run, eh?

Promise?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By getalife

March 15, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this

Benedict Danish,

Try to keep up traitor. The enemy has moved to Pakistan.

You will have to venture into reality and I know that sux for you.

You will not see this reality on faux or rushie.

I bet you believe that the John Belushi looking terrorist commmited 30 terror attacks like RW.

Geez, get a grip on reality.

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

hyterra,

You “vote” in the daily cartoon poll? Way to go, dude!

{{{By Goldie March 15, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this

{{Clinton was smart enough to see that it was a very bad idea.}}

Walt, some of these extremist loonies try to equate “Clinton thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs too!” with the fact that W invaded an unarmed country. President Clinton was smart — he knew that the intel about Saddam was conflicted. Some analysts warned that there was no evidence of active WMD programs. And even if he did think that Saddam may have WMDs, he DID NOT invade and occupy that country based on what he THOUGHT was true. Big difference between having a president with smarts (like Clinton) and having one who is arrogant and lacking the brains to lead America! Blah Blah Blah}}}

GoldieDull the “But!” Monkey,

Where to begin?

Let’s start here - Iraq was an “Unarmed country”????????????????

Next - Was Clinton the President before or after 9/11????????????????

Next - Assuming you got that you manage to get that^^^ question correct, how might 9/11 have made your “even if” argument change?

Next, how did the declarations of the Congress of the United States and their statements regarding the threat posed by Saddam Hussein influence President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq?

Extra credit!

Who said, “I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.”

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm.

This^^ is from Sybil Bon Finchie’s Alma Mater. Word!

By Blackadder

March 15, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this

Thanks Midori - I just emailed XM and AA to ask what the deal is. I really enjoyed Hartmann when he was a fill-in and was anxiously awaiting his takeover of Al’s slot. So far (on XM) it’s been Schultz every day since Al left.

I WANT HARTMANN :-)

By RE

March 15, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

Wiki link, use your own discretion as to it’s validity

So we use lots of different types of bonds to float our debt. I imagine the diversification provides stability, but I am sure that large portions of the debt are held in short term 1-10 year securities that will be reissued to finance the debt. Also take a look at the TIPS, protection from inflation.

So I would say the answer is not a straight yes or no, but that rising interest rates will have a growing effect on the debt as bonds get reissued.

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

{{Neo-Cons are BIG TOUGH MEN. They dodged combat in their day, but by golly, they are tough now!}}

Walt, Big-n-Tuff and mostly hiding in their caves now!

Wolfowitz got his Medal and high-tailed outta there. Paul Bremer spent a year in Iraq giving out pallets of $$$ to any and all terrorists who came with their palms open, and now he’s disappeared from the scene. Scooter is heading for the shower stalls in some Federal penitentiary.

Next up: subpoenas for KKKarl Rove and a deadly heart-attack for Darth Vader Cheney.

So much for the Big-N-Tuff-ers!

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

RE, I really need to leave but I always enjoy a good discussion. You said; “Tariffs are protectionist, what I can’t figure out is why it is bad to protect the US economy.” By no means is it bad to protect America’s economy, but there are two ways you can do it. You can project punishments on other countries economies and thereby their people, or you can build America up to be the place every business and everybody wants to be. I like the later.

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this

{{Next - Was Clinton the President before or after 9/11????????}}

EXTRA CREDIT DONUT— what has that got to do with invading IRAQ?????

Buzzzzz— you lose!

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

Ambassador Getalife,

When did the “enemy” move to Pakistan and why?

Clarification requested:

Are you saying that Khalid Sheik Mohammed is lying about his role in all these attacks? Or are you arguing semantically about the meaning of the word “committed”, kinda like Billy Jeff argued about the word “is”?

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

Walt— also, let’s not forget the REAL Big-N-Tuff-er:

Don “Stuff Happens!” Rumsfeld… who even knows where he’s hiding these days?

By RE

March 15, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

Tariffs have been proven to protect the economy and strengthen the country. Eliminating taxes has not. First exapmle that comes to mind is the cayman islands. How are the people doing there?

We will continue this on another day, if you get the chance, catch one of this guy’s shows. Give it an hour to listen to.

By ROTFL

March 15, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

AIR AMERICA??!!

oh my oh me oh me oh my

bye bye miss american pie

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

Goldie the “But!” Monkey,

Have you, or have you not been saying that it is impossible to bring Democracy to Iraq and created the impression that this concept was a misguided “Neo-Con” idea?

Is Clinton a Neo-con?

By “you” I mean the collective “you” of the Leftists who blog here, like your pal Sybil Bon Finchie and others.

P.S. I’m still waiting to hear who “they” are.

By getalife

March 15, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

BD,

Do your own research.

I posted the link yesterday.

I am not buying anything he says. Sounds like another “curveball” to me.

By IN THE NEWS

March 15, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

IT JUST KEEPS GETTING STINKIER

A number of readers have pointed out that Karl Rove’s deputy at the White House, Scott Jennings, used an outside domain, gwb43.com, for his emails. The domain, it turns out, is owned by the Republican National Committee.

Now Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has sent a letter to House government reform committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) requesting an investigation of whether the White House has been violating the Presidential Records Act — in an attempt to keep certain correspondence away from prying eyes.

Jennings use of the RNC’s email “raises serious questions about whether the White House was trying to deliberately evade its responsibilities under the PRA, which directs the president to take all necessary steps to maintain presidential records to provide a full accounting of all activities during his tenure,” says CREW.

And there’s evidence that Jennings’ use of an outside domain was a pattern in Rove’s office. CREW points out that Karl Rove’s former assistant Susan Ralston also frequently used outside domains to communicate to her old boss, Jack Abramoff.

By RE

March 15, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

Sounds like Khalid Sheik Mohammed Has said he was responsible for just about every terrorist thing that has happened from 1990-2003. Sounds a little fishy. Either that or he is a supervillian.

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this

By Blackadder-{{{{{I’ve inquired several times to the AJC about how this is possible and have never received a response. Waaaahhhhh}}}}}

It’s one thing to be a little pansy crybaby, but why can’t you keep it to yourself? You’re embarrassing yourself adder, you should have followed the course of action from your suicide note a couple of weeks ago.

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

RE, nobody said tarrifs have not proved to protect the economy, nor has anyone typed about eliminating taxes. Tariffs are an external punishment to others to discourage their behavior. I don’t see how anyone could disagree with that statement. I choose to seek beneficial behavior from incentives rather than punishments.

Getalife, what do you propose we do about the tri-sate tribal region where Al-Qaeda probably is? You speak of research and conservatives being stupid, but you offer no solutions?

By Blackadder

March 15, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

Eric Boehlert’s great piece at Media Matters asks the following hypothetical questions:

All of which begs the questions, why do Fox News execs spin so furiously whenever they’re the ones accused of having a bias? Why do they consider it “sad” and “pathetic” to be tagged as Republican? Why do Fox News employees find the label “conservative’” so insulting? Why does Fox News indignantly demand news outlets print corrections if they simply report that Fox News has a Republican tilt?

The answer here is that Fox News can’t fight back against charges of bias the way other news organizations do. When Howard Kurtz, for example, was criticized in an online chat at the Washington Post, he trotted out the old line “I get criticized from both sides, which tells me I must be doing something right”. For the traditional media, that’s their (lazy, logically-flawed, foolish…) go-to excuse to get out of any charges of political bias, but that would never, ever work for Fox News. Even their most ardent defenders would crack a rib laughing at the notion that anyone would ever accuse Fox of having a liberal bias. They can’t play the “both sides hate us” card, so they have to resort to Plan B : throw a temper tantrum like the overgrown children that they are.

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this

RE,

When I started seeing all of KSM’s admissions I kept reading to see if he had fessed up to kidnapping the Lindberg baby. It does seem a little ridiculous, but I’m surprised that liberals, like yourself, didn’t latch on to it and say that the entire terror war was over since we had the perpetrator of all evil in custody.

By Midori

March 15, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

RE,

I’veheard that Mohammed even confessed that he is the father of Anna Nicole’s baby.

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

March 15, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

-=-

First to Nut-Meg Danish Roll about the Wiki post…

You were trying to tie Bin Laden and Saddam as co-horts. They were not!~

[Bin Laden offered the services of his mujahedeen to King Fahd to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army.]

As a matter of fact, The USA-CIA (Daddy Bush) during the Reagan administration were working with Bin’ Bad-Laden, in Afghanistan against them evil Ruskies’. And we won’t even mention the oil company that the Bush’s and the Bin Laden family own together now will we?

But the neocon hit-squads and faux news outlets will continue to try and falsify a connection between Sad-Damn and Bin Loser.

Especially the Paid for in “Danish Rolls” NeoNutMeg.

-=-

Scooter - you asked Goldie for Documents on Iraq’s weapons. Lets start with this IAEA report.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-reportvol2nuclear-03.htm

You are aware that many of the weapons that Saddam had in his possession were given to him by the good ol’ USA in a deal that Cheney and Rummy brokered. Even most likely the chemical weapons he used on the Kurds seeing as he didn’t have any before that deal.

Clinton had cause for concern during is administration, because Saddam had started back on a weapons program, as did North Korea, but Clinton (through UN and negotiations and 1 airstrike) curtailed that problem and UN had inspectors keeping things under lock and key.

Dubya’ kinda’ screwed up the peace and stability dontcha’ think?

-=-

In either case, even if both of these falsehoods were true, it is still not a clear justification for the USA to invade Iraq and overthrow it’s Leader. Even if that leader was torturing and killing his own people. It is “Their” country with “Their” own laws and leaders, and we had absolutly no legitimate reason to invade them by international law. We have become the aggressors!~

Of course no one has answered my question with a legitimate reason, and in case you missed it:

Why did we invade IRAQ?

Not a single one of you can give me a legitimate reason can you?

Thomas/PNAC

By Lord Doom

March 15, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

B*tch Danish,

You called Goldie a monkey at 3:31. Whose the racist now hag?

By Blackadder

March 15, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this

RW - throw yourself off a bridge you low-life. Are you about to have yet another meltdown? Too bad you reared your ugly head at the time I’m about to leave for the day. I’d really like to see what meaningless bile you come up with.

Oh well. Adios munchkin.

By ROTFL

March 15, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this

“I’veheard that Mohammed even confessed that he is the father of Anna Nicole’s baby.”

Probably on AIR AMERICA!!!

ROTFL

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

Donut @ 3:31— you’ve obviously hit the bottle even earlier than usual today. I have no idea what you’re babbling on and on about… BLAH BLAH BLAH!

And the contest is over — the buzzer went off @ 3:23, but thanks for playing!

By IN THE NEWS

March 15, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

WHO SHOT THE SHERIFF?

WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT?

WHO PUT THE BOP IN THE BOP SHE BOP SHE BOP?

WHO KINDNAPPED THE LINBERGH BABY?

WHO LET THE DOGS OUT?

Kalid Sheikh Mohammed

HE ALSO KILLED COLONEL PLUM IN THE LIBRARY WITH THE CANDLESTICK

TORTURE SURE DOES WORK!

By Little Right of Center

March 15, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

I see the needle is stuck again, somebody needs to smack you upside the head.

BUSH LIED…. BUSH LIED…. BUSH LIED

The SKY is FALLING… The SKY is FALLING… The SKY is FALLING…

BUSH LIED…. BUSH LIED…. BUSH LIED

Keep shouting it and IT WILL BE YOUR TRUTH

I’ll see you ignorant lefties after the elections. Your excuses should be real interesting.

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

I’ll bet that Sheik Mohammed guy will next be ‘fessing that he also had sex with Ted Haggard!

By IN THE NEWS

March 15, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

KSM IS BIG FOOT

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

{{I’ll see you ignorant lefties after the elections. Your excuses should be real interesting.}}

BAWAAAAAAAA!

Way Right dives into the doo head-first!

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

Blackadder,

Why are you always copying Buy Danish and me? Can’t you even come up with your own trash talk?

It also not a pretty sight watching you blame me for your mental instability. I’m not the one that said I wanted to punch anyone that disagreed with me and I’m not the one that came in here with a sappy suicide note claiming that I was leaving forever just because someone had dared to call me on the lunacy of wanting to inflict physical damage on anybody that didn’t march in ideological lockstep with me. No adder, that was YOU! Idiot!

Why don’t you go cry to the AJC about me like you do about Andy before you run away? Now child!!

By Blackadder

March 15, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

One more thing before I go - why in the world did they include a photo of RW in this blog post on Wonkette?

Yeah, yeah I’m supposed to be civil but RW just won’t allow that.

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

Way Right— do you know someone who’s going to resurrect your guy Ray-gun from the dead in order to win another election?????

BAWAAAAAAAAAAA!

By Daniel

March 15, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

RE: Tarriffs on imports are complex. Recal the Bush deal of tariffs on imported steel. Done to capture the WVA vote. The US estimates this cost America dearly. Of course, they were eventually lifted. George Will said afterwards Clinton ws more principled than Bush, on this issue. Once the tariff wars start where do they end? When “we” protect one sector we lose in many others. That’s why we need smart people in government and not political hacks, like we have now. Scooter: It does not require deductive reasoning.

By getalife

March 15, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this

Who knew the enemy was only one man, a superterrorist if you will.

Geez, talk about gullible.

Wingnuts will believe absolutely anything.

Can you say “curve-ball”?

This one is “knuckle-ball.”

Geez.

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

Disgusting Doomster,

Uh, the expression “But! Monkey” is a term that Laura Ingraham uses to describe people like Goldie who say things like “Clinton may have believed Hussein had WMDs BUT…”

Also see “Surrender Monkey”.

Anyway, I have always assumed that Goldie was a dumb blonde. If that is a “racist” statement then you must be Malik Shabbaz.

Ambassador Getalife,

I’m asking YOU to tell us when and why for a very specific reason.

Your “Do your own research, I linked to it yesterday” excuse does fit right in with the sandbox mentality, I’ll give you that.

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

Hey Dumba-ss Doomster,

Since the snake and I posted at the same time are you now going to claim we’re the same person? That would be kind of like you and Magneto except with brains.

By Walt

March 15, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

“Who said, “I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.”

Whoever said that was shooting craps with our soldiers and Marines’ lives.

Or they were salivating with the idea of securing an important startegic objective for Israel.

Walt

By Lord Doom

March 15, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

B*tch Danish,

Doom read you and your bacterial friend’s blogs from yesterday. You think because you got busted using multi IDs that you can bust the power of Doom? Be honest, do I seem like the type of person who would feel compelled to hide behind another Id? Do you think there’s any shame in my game? If I feel comfortable to make the comments that I make, why the hell would I make softer comments behind another ID. If anyting, I would soften up.

Although I do admire Magneto’s accomplishment of busting you, not to mention the fact that he too is named after a Marvel SuperVillian, he’s a leftist and Doom cannot continually fellowship with such. So nice try, sea hag, but Doom is Doom.

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

March 15, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

-=-

Goldie?

That sex with Ted Haggard one might actually be true (chuckle)..

Hmm — looks like the country is about to erupt in Civil war!`

No Not Iraq’—-

USA as the partisan bickering continues…

-=-

Concerning the bloodbath in Iraq comments earlier — Better their blood than ours — EH?~!

Thomas/PNAC

By getalife

March 15, 2007 4:10 PM | Link to this

Benedict Danish,

Do you and RW come here to insult or do you have a point?

My goodness, two angry wingnuts.

By RE

March 15, 2007 4:10 PM | Link to this

Daniel,

I understand and tariffs have pros and cons. But we are also the largest consumer of products in the world and yet we do not leverage that position. I believe we started down the wrong path when we opened free trade zones with countries that have lower standards of living. We can have free trade with the UK, most of europe etc. provided it is reciprocated, but having free trade with a third world country where the workers will be paid pennies a day will only ensure that the US loses it’s production base as it already has.

We are talking tactics instead of goals. My goals would be for the US to have an increasing production base, not a decreasing or absent production base. I would like the US to export it’s goods again. I think these things are strengthening factors for the US, and losing are production base and jobs are weakinging for the US.

What tactics do you think would bring about these goals?

By jacksonwolff

March 15, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

uuuummm, did I miss something? When did Doom start attacking more conservative posters?

This must be bizaro world again.

By Lord Doom

March 15, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this

RW(the f*ck up),

One more word out of you and Doom will unscrew the wheels off your whellchair!

B*tch Danish,

If you haven’t figured out that Goldie is black by now, then you deserve every insult she throws at you.

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this

This morning the candy a-ss pinkos were wailing about how we needed to scour the Pakistani countryside and find Osama Been Ladentorest, the super terrorist, before he took out Manhattan, Chicago and Dubuque, sank our Navy and shot down all of our fighter jets.

Now were to believe that KSM couldn’t possibly have sawed off some journalist’s head and threw a molotov cocktail into a pizza parlor, no way!!, that’s too much for one man to do all alone!!

Sigh.

Sieg Heil, Danny!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

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

March 15, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this

-=-

American Suicide Bomber in Boston~!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17626550/?GT1=9145

Lunatic really —-

-=-

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Do you come here for any reason other than to mindlessly babble, “the end is near?”

I tried to give you moonbats a perfect opportunity to declare the end of all hostilities and instead of accepting my olive branch, you’re trying to bite my hand.

By Lord Doom

March 15, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this

jacksonwolff,

BulldogDanish is a Benedict Arnold. She originally turned against me a couple of weeks ago. She has accused me of being racist,(Doom believes he is a realist), but if you look at her comment to Goldie,who is black, at 3:31, you will see who the real racist is.

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

Dumba-ss Doomster,

Go play with yourself in traffic MOBY. In fact why don’t you and Maggoteto act out last night’s South Park episode since you’re both into cartoons. You can alternate between being Cartman and Butters.

By getalife

March 15, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

RW,

I never said the end is near.

Thats the wingnut ideology.

Just post the facts and not the spin.

A real no spin zone, if you will.

By RE

March 15, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this

HA, funny RW.

funny episode, shades of Ted Haggard there. The funniest part for me is when butters talks the kid off the bridge. As soon as he is down the preacher says “jesus saved him”

Irony

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

What I wouldn’t give to have a huge c*ck shoved up my a$$!

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

{{If you haven’t figured out that Goldie is black by now, then }}

Wrong again, Gloom-N-Doom!

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

March 15, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this

-=-

Ohh Noo Andy-Dull -

We believe he could have done all those things… He admitted to it publicly, and why should we ever think he might be lying. After all he’s doing Allah’s work!~

But now if Kalid’ truly did all that, then we have been wrongly accusing Sammy’ Bin Laden’ all along. Oh My — Poor Bin Laden’ Slandered by Amerika’!~ The horror of being falsly accused by those lying infidels’—- I can see his next speech now…

^ [+]

Sure Andy - I agree with you - 100%. Laden was Framed!~ (hee)

Thomas/PNAC

-=-

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this

RE,

I missed most of the part when Butters was at “camp.” Sounds pretty funny.

getalife,

You wouldn’t know spin since you limit yourself to one side of all arguments.

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

Headlines in Doomsterville:

Laura Ingraham is a racist!

James Baker is Black!

Headline at the AJC:

Buy Danish is not @@ and we can prove it!

Getalife,

Smooch smooch. Please, please, pretty please with a cherry on top, give me the freaking link or GFY.

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

Thomas, are you kidding with that IAEA Report? My question was specifically how “the left” knew (prior to March 20, 2003) Saddam had FULLY disarmed and you provide me with a document produced after that date. Go fish!

Also, no I did not know that the US gave Iraq WMD’s. I thought our CDC provided Iraq with germs for antitoxins and such.) That wouldn’t be another of those little piece of misinformation or lies of omission the media has used to work the electorate into its current state of delusion, would it?

You know, at the time we had a bigger problem with the country Iraq was fighting and wanted to see Saddam win the battle. I am not saying it was right, I am just saying the world does not operate within the narrow confines that some like to think it does. Sometimes we have to choose to side with the lesser of two evils.

By RE

March 15, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this

RS: What do you make of this talking point that “Clinton did this too.”

Barr: I and a number of others were critical of president Clinton when he first came into office and almost immediately removed all U.S. Attorneys. But that’s not the same thing as what’s happening now.

We’re seeing a president in his second term go after U.S. attorneys of his own party for reasons that are clearly political: not moving fast enough against targets on the other side of the aisle, succumbing to pressure from Senators for example. That is very, very corrosive, both to morale for U.S. Attorneys as well as in terms of reducing the confidence that the public has that the system is fair and impartial and non-partisan.

Bob Barr’s take on the attorneys, Gonzales should step down. I guess that makes him a moonbat

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

Allow me to explain why I think the way I do. You see, I grew up in a household where my father was an opium addict and my mother was a hermaphrodite. One day I came home from school earlier than usual and I caught my dad sucking my mom’s c*ck. The experience was breathtaking, to say the least. So if any one out there is wondering why I tend to be such a butthole, I feel that this little bit of info may give you a better understanding.

By getalife

March 15, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this

BD,

Nope but the lawyers were rioting today in Pakistan.

Do you know why?

By IN THE NEWS

March 15, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

TOUGH TO BE SERIOUS, WHEN CONSIDERING KSM CONFESSION TO ALL EVILS OF THE WORLD….

BUT HERE”S SOME OTHER JOLLY WORDS

Are neo-cons history? By Jacob Weisberg

Published: March 14 2007 19:17 | Last updated: March 14 2007 19:17

The term “neo-conservative” has many usages, including “former liberal” and “Jewish conservative”. In recent years, however, it has taken on clearer definition as a philosophy of aggressive unilateralism and the attempt to impose democratic ideas on the Arab world. The neo-conservatives also constitute a distinct group around George W. Bush, the US president. They pushed for the invasion of Iraq and remain identified with hardline positions on Iran, Syria and North Korea.

Outside the administration, the chief fulcrum of neo-conservatism is the American Enterprise Institute. The day after vice-president Dick Cheney’s former aide Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury, AEI held its annual black-tie gala. I did not go expecting contrition, but under the circumstances it seemed possible that self-examination might feature on the menu. Once a lazy pasture for moderate Republicans hurtled into the private sector by Gerald Ford’s 1976 defeat, AEI has turned in recent years into a kind of Cheney family think-tank. It had not been a good week, year, or second term for any of these people and I thought a few cocktails might cause them to consider their predicament. ……

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

March 15, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

-=-

Oh My did the earth just end?

RW and RE actually found something they like in common — grins

-=-

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

Am I RS?

By IN THE NEWS

March 15, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

AND MORE OF THAT SAME PIECE

But the larger factor in Mr Cheney’s demise is that his neo-conservative hypotheses have been falsified by events. Invading Iraq did not catalyse a new Middle East; isolating North Korea advanced its nuclear programme; high-handed unilateralism has reduced American power. At the outset of his presidency, Mr Bush thought himself lucky to have a number two who did not aspire to his job. He may now grasp the hazard of lending so much power to someone with no incentive to test his views in the political marketplace.

By Closet Democrat

March 15, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - Every time President Bush makes an overture to Democrats — and he makes plenty these days — conservative Republicans get edgy. They fear he might be so willing to cross the aisle that he will end up crossing them.

Now we see the full genius of Republican strategy. King George has been a total failure because he was really just a closet Democrat all along.

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

I guess dumba-ss Doomster has taken to playing the childish game of name jacking. I told you she was a liberal.

By Daniel

March 15, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this

RE: You’ve covered a lot of ground. I agree that we need to strengthen the US production and job base. This takes leadership. The one thing Bus has done expertly is flood the rich with cash. The winner over the last six years have been Big Business. This has come at a great expense. We are a consumer, not a producer. We are a debtor not a lender. We are an importer, not an exporter. We suffer huge trade deficits, A National Debt and we glom more than all others. We need to hear a leader talk about this.

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this

By AntiRadical March 15, 2007 4:48 PM Now we see the full genius of Republican strategy. King George has been a total failure because he was really just a closet Democrat all along.

My goodness, Spammie, for once we agree. democrats are total failures.

Sieg Heil Danny!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By RE

March 15, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

Yeah, aside from religion, politics, science, the economy, the past, the present, and the future, RW and I agree on a lot of things.

Comedy central is for everyone. Laugh while you can, it is still free.

By Paul

March 15, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this

Goldie 12:17

I liked the theme of your comment:

“we all CARE about the pending bloodbath, but it’s nothing something that our troops can prevent at this point.

If we leave tomorrow, the Iraqis will be killing each other for power. If we wait 5 years to leave, the Iraqis will still be killing each other… So why should we put off the inevitable…”

Ralph Peters wrote a book in the late 90s, said America’s tough choices in the near future would be to identify intervention for America’s national interests and intervention because “we care.” He wrote many of the “we care” contingent would pressure leaders to intervene in areas where America does not have a national interest.

The latter will become more and more problematic. Take Iraq - take out the WMD rationale - you still have the “he’s killing hundreds of thousands and is slaughtering all the Kurds” - so under the “stop the killing” view of the first position we’d have intervened anyhow.

A consistent application of a lesson of Iraq will be nonintervention in Sudan, Dharfur, Bosnia, Rwanda, or anyplace where people are killing one another, starving one another, etc. Personally, I’ve thought those areas are for the United Nations - that’s one reason we created it. In areas where Americas vital national interests are at stake, we should see the support of others affected, then act (with or without them). The other areas should be handed off to the UN - and their track record is pretty lousy for Humanitarian relief, absent strong American leadership - so the pressure well still exist for America to “do something.”

By THE MANAGEMENT

March 15, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this

Some of you have been having trouble posting comments lately. Here’s what is causing that. We strengthened our spam filter so that it now treats a comment with more than two links as spam.

So if there are more than two links you want to provide, make separate entries.

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this

By THE MANAGEMENT March 15, 2007 5:06 PM Some of you have been having trouble posting comments lately. Here’s what is causing that. We strengthened our spam filter

How did this get through then?

By AntiRadical March 15, 2007 4:48 PM WASHINGTON - Every time President Bush makes an overture to Democrats — and he makes plenty these days — conservative Republicans get edgy. They fear he might be so willing to cross the aisle that he will end up crossing them. Now we see the full genius of Republican strategy. King George has been a total failure because he was really just a closet Democrat all along.

It isn’t a Conservative filter is it?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this

AJC, if you are going to not allow my informative links you should not have them come up in blue.

I love how when Bush allows the rich to keep some of the money that is disproportionately taken from them, Daniel defines it as flooding the rich with cash. That is the envy and animosity the left depends on. Obviously equal protection under the law does not apply to tax law.

Paul, it is good to read you. This place is beginning to pickle me again. I am just too young and don’t have the patience.

By RE

March 15, 2007 5:16 PM | Link to this

Daniel,

I agree with you on some of the tactics, the problem is that as soon as we are anywhere near a budget surplus, there will be a politician calling for tax cuts. And they will be elected.

As I see it the two resources we have plenty of in the US in abundance are Wealth and a desire to spend it. We are the largest consumer in the world, we might as well look to using that to get us back to a producer status.

I would like to see someone find a model of what happens in the long run to a country that no longer produces goods and borrowers to pay for them.

And then decide if that is the path you want to continue down.

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this

THE MANAGEMENT,

That would be great if you would give us back the ability to italicize. Right now we have to make each paragraph a separate link to show we’re still excerpting an article.

By ON THE RECORD

March 15, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this

Senate GOP Turns Back Iraq Pullout Plan- WASHINGTON - Democrats aggressively challenged President Bush’s Iraq policy at both ends of the Capitol on Thursday, gaining House committee approval for a troop withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008, but suffering defeat in the Senate on a less sweeping plan to end U.S. participation in the war.

We must never forget that it is the REPUBLICANS who are keeping the Iraq debacle going. It is the REPUBLICANS who are defying the will of the american voters. It is the REPUBLICANS who are destroying America’s good image around the world. It is the REPUBLICANS who continue to spend money hand over fist just so they can help their industry owners swindle the american taxpayer out of a few more billion warbucks.

Bad mean ole Democrats, makin those poor abused Republicans go ‘on the record’ about something. Republicans hate responsibility even more than they hate honesty! Makin a Republican responsible for their own actions is so mean spirited it’s like pouring salt on a garden slug.

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 5:23 PM | Link to this

This part was good to; “Why should a healthy person paythe health care of the couch potato who smokes?” Why should someone who eats healthy and excercises pay for the medical care of someone who doesn’t? The why should’s could go on endlessly. How about this novel idea; the smoker pays for his own healthcare and if his smoking kills him, so be it. OOOH, that was realistically cold.

Why should we have to pay for the health care of someone who lives on cheetos, pork rinds, and cola?

Oh let’s just imagine the power the Imperial Federal Government can wield over us under Socialized medicine. Golly, they will have access to our medical records, the IRS will give them access to our financial records and they might tell us what we can and cannot consume. Oh sounds like freedom to me.

By Paul

March 15, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

Scooter

Thx. Unsolicited advice - read a lot. Lots of viewpoints. Read Barak Obama’s book. Then read Dick Morris’s critiques. I grew up in a household where my parent subscribed to everything from Soviet Life to near-John Birch-type mags. Viewpoints all over. Take courses from instructors who encourage you to think - not regurgitate. Stake out a position, support it with facts and reasoned opinions. And think it’s a good thing to change your mind for the right reasons.

Didn’t mean to sound pendantic - well, not too much, anyways - I’m off to dinner with some visiting relatives. They’re the good kind - here for only two days.

Cheers -

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

By AntiRadical March 15, 2007 5:19 PM We must never forget that it is the REPUBLICANS who are keeping the Iraq debacle going.

Dam-n Spammie, that’s two for two we agree on.

Shout it from the mountaintops; the candy a-ss pinkos want to bring genocide to Iraq and the terrorists to America, all for a few votes.

Sieg Heil Danny!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Daniel

March 15, 2007 5:32 PM | Link to this

RE: You make good points. On the micro side I see economics as all my kids having a job and living within their means, saving some, paying bills on time. I am close to getting that. On the macro side, it is more complex.

By Paul

March 15, 2007 5:34 PM | Link to this

Scooter -

You’ve also shown the ability to overlook typos for the main idea. In the same vein I trust you also can discern between “pendantic” and “pedantic.”

It’s a poor mind that can’t figure out more then one way to spell a word -

By RE

March 15, 2007 5:34 PM | Link to this

Anyone interested in the mortgage market/ house value/ effect on the economy?

The fix now being suggested by some members of the U.S. Congress demonstrates how Washington completely misunderstands market dynamics. Their legislative proposals will require that lenders make potential borrowers verify their incomes and restrict credit only to those who can afford the payments after the teaser periods end. Washington fails to grasp that a return to traditional lending standards would precipitate a return to traditional prices, which are way below current levels

Get ready to be in your house for a long time. You will not be able to sell or refi in a couple of years unless you have a lot of equity, and you will lose that shortly.

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this

By Scooter March 15, 2007 5:23 PM This part was good to; “Why should a healthy person paythe health care of the couch potato who smokes?”

Scoot: These liberals don’t even realize the things they say. Ole GruppenFuhrer Daniel said that because he “works out” at age “79,” therefore he is superior to all of the scumbag smokers and couch potatoes.

Now apply that to welfare, why should I have to pay taxes to support those that can’t or won’t work?

Huh, Danny?

Sieg Heil!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Daniel

March 15, 2007 5:41 PM | Link to this

Scooter: The government already has that power. Read the Patriot Act. You’re screwed.

By RE

March 15, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this

Daniel,

I agree, and yet I am pessimistic about the future. When has the theme of “National Sacrifice” ever been as popular as “tax cuts”

I do not see these types of leader being able to be elected because most voters are either in total lockstep with a party or think only as far into the future as the next tax return.

How I see the surrent state of affairs:

In debt and going deeper

Production base diminished and still declining

Entitlements and promises we currently cannot meet are being expanded

By Republican War Profiteers

March 15, 2007 5:43 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday approved a bill to limit the use of noncompetitive federal contracts in the wake of abuses in the Iraq war and the Hurricane Katrina cleanup.

The bill, introduced by California Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, would change federal acquisition law to require agencies to limit use of so-called no-bid contracts and to promote contracting competition.

Republicans were not about to allow a level playing field for the allocation of war contracting. That would have made it a lot harder to steer those warbucks to their good buddies in BIG, BIG, BUSINESS and BIG, BIG, GOVERNMENT. Ain’t it great the Democrats are finally restoring some accountability to government and makin it tough for the Republican war profiteers to cheat the taxpayers and our men and women in uniform?

By Daniel

March 15, 2007 5:49 PM | Link to this

RE: I am optimistic. Do not underestimate the American People.

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 6:06 PM | Link to this

Daniel,

Spoken like a true Communist:

{{{The government should encourage healthy behavior and discourage the unhealthy. That is why government was invented.}}}

Moonbat Theory # 92,479 -

{{{Healthy people are productive. They have less anger and are likely to vote more intelligently.}}}

I don’t doubt that healthy people are productive. It’s the rest of your theory that is amusing.

By RE

March 15, 2007 6:12 PM | Link to this

and there is BD again, with nothing to contribute but old cliches

By Daniel

March 15, 2007 6:18 PM | Link to this

BD: The last part was a vain attempt at humor. Seriously, why shouldn’t government encourage healthy behavior?

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 6:21 PM | Link to this

RE,

Daniel says government was INVENTED to make people eat healthy and you say BD is the one not contributing??? You freaking moonbats will excuse any lunacy in the world as long as it’s one of your own sputtering it.

I do sort of agree with the part encouraging good things and punishing bad. That’s why tax cuts were INVENTED. (thanks Danny!) They encourage people to be productive while taxing them to death does just the opposite.

By Daniel

March 15, 2007 6:26 PM | Link to this

RW: What was said was:

By Death before Republican Dishonor

March 15, 2007 6:33 PM | Link to this

Testimony gathered by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission documents how life for many Afghan women remains so bleak that some choose a horrific and painful death instead.

The study indicates a marked increase in reported cases in two of the provinces. Two years ago in Farah province, there were 15 cases of self-immolation reported. That figure had jumped to 36 in the first six months of last year, the commission found. Kandahar province had 74 cases two years ago, and 77 cases in the first six months of this past year.

King George ignored the horrors occuring in Afghanistan so that he could ‘go for the (black) gold’ in Iraq.

Result: Afghani women, who suffered through the rule of the Taliban, would rather set themselves on fire than live in the conditions created by the Chimperor!

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 6:33 PM | Link to this

Daniel,

Are you crazy?

Daniel-{{{{With the new Congress the “Pork” has diminished dramatically.}}}}

They just tacked 138 or so million dollars on the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental spending bill. They spent millions more to store peanuts and help fisherman catch more crabs. Hopefully not the landlocked version.

The list goes on and on, yet you claim they’ve cut out pork. Here’s a helpful tip for you. Watch what they do not what they say. Hello?

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 6:33 PM | Link to this

Daniella,

Because for the most part the “experts” don’t know what is healthy and what isn’t. It’s about as scientific as Global Warming theory

At one time or another I have been told that tap water, salt, sugar, coffee, olive oil, carbohydrates, meat, ALAR and who knows what else are bad.

I have been told that Vitamin C and other snake oil products are good.

Just this week they claimed that the Atkins Diet works best for women. Next year we’ll hear the opposite.

I frankly think that the Atkins Diet is completely unsustainable and would make anyone who tried to follow it for more than a week go completely insane.

The lo-fat craze has caused people to balloon in weight because all the fat is replaced with sugar. Meanwhile my kid who is skin and bones and needs fat can’t get whole milk at school and is forced to drink skim milk which is disgusting. The end result? He doesn’t drink any milk at all at school.

When I was pregnant, “What to Expect When You’re Expecting”, which is the Bible of pregnancy books said that I could have one lousy bagel a month. I threw the book in the trash. I did follow the common sense suggestions about alcohol intake.

By RE

March 15, 2007 6:36 PM | Link to this

OK, question.

Is the government’s role the welfare of the public?

By @@

March 15, 2007 6:40 PM | Link to this

Can anybody here tell me if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had access to media reports of any kind during his incarceration?

By Daniel

March 15, 2007 6:40 PM | Link to this

RW: CNN had a watch dog group on that said the so called “entitlements” had dropped dramatically. I can’t think of the name right now. This was a consumer advocate group that nmonitors those things. They’re still too high.

BD: The American Heart Association, American Diabetic grooup and the American Medical Association all have excellent diets. I follow the AHA. Ithin its great. Nothing fancy, eat fruit, avoid meat, vegetables, exercise. Everything your grandmother told you. What’s not to like?

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 6:44 PM | Link to this

RE,

You need to expand that question out a bit. Are you talking about Federal government or any government? By the welfare of the public do you mean to provide an atmosphere for them to succeed or are you asking the government to make it so that no one has to face the consequences of their choices?

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 6:45 PM | Link to this

{{{By RE

March 15, 2007 6:12 PM | Link to this

and there is BD again, with nothing to contribute but old cliches}}}

Followed by this?

(((By RE

March 15, 2007 6:36 PM | Link to this

OK, question.

Is the government’s role the welfare of the public?}}

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 6:47 PM | Link to this

Daniel,

I hope the watch dog group will revisit their findings after today’s vote. If not they are just partisan hacks.

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 6:48 PM | Link to this

RE— wasn’t it Granddaddy Lincoln who stated that gov’t was “of the People, by the People, and for the People”? It should serve for the common defense and common good — thus, we need sustainable highways and transportation, we need standards and inspections of the food products we rely on, we need disease control and prevention, we need police and fire protection, and many other functions for our society to sustain itself…

By Magneto

March 15, 2007 6:51 PM | Link to this

Bi Danish,

I see you’ve been having fun in my absence. I intentionally avoided the blog to see what you would do. But never fear the master of magnetism is a little tired today, not in the mood for fighting.

By @@

March 15, 2007 6:51 PM | Link to this

Gosh RE. China is limiting their population growth by taking some rather harsh measures. I think they’re doing THAT in the interest of the public welfare.

Is that the kind of help you’re talking about?

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 6:53 PM | Link to this

Daniella,

The government for the most part does not follow Grandmother’s advice. If they did they would make PE and recess a part of every child’s school day and they would not be forcing skim milk down our children’s gullets.

Have you ever seen what the average school “nutritionist” looks like? They are generally obese. The government is also full of it when it comes up with these scary statistics that one in three kids is obese.

No they are not. Maybe in certain ethnic groups they are (like Hawaiians, Alaskans etc.) but not as part of the general population. It’s mostly BS propaganda.

Anyway, those groups are not government entities but could get government funding.

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 6:56 PM | Link to this

Moron Magneto,

I don’t give a rip what you do. I don’t give you a moments thought.

By Daniel

March 15, 2007 6:58 PM | Link to this

RE:, RW: Interesting questions. “…so no one has to face the consequences of their choices?”

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 6:59 PM | Link to this

RW,

The problem with REs question is that it could take a 12 volume textbook to respond.

What a liberal, Libertarian, anarchist, conservative, socialist, Atheist, communist, fascist, Green, or moonbat thinks is the role of government is going to vary greatly.

It’s an incredibly boring topic, IMHO.

By Magneto

March 15, 2007 7:01 PM | Link to this

Bi Danish,

That’s not true. I’m giving you real relevance on this blog. Surely something deep down inside you admires my ability to id you as @@.

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 7:01 PM | Link to this

RE— you can expect the usual feedback from the rightwing loonies. Ya know, where they will suggest that our gov’t is best run by BIG CORPORATIONS, right? I mean, those corporations have society in their uppermost thoughts, right?

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 7:02 PM | Link to this

I see dumba-ss Doomster is back.

@@,

Good point about China. Those forced abortions are great for the public welfare.

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 7:04 PM | Link to this

Daniel,

Let me give you a little tip so that your posts don’t keep backing up against the next poster.

Double space at the end of each post and you’ll have a little breathing room.

RW,

To clarify - It’s an incredibly boring topic for this blog, particularly when asked by RE who will hound you to the ends of the Earth to get the answer he wants, and will keep changing the topic, and moving the goal posts.

By Goldie

March 15, 2007 7:05 PM | Link to this

{{It’s an incredibly boring topic, IMHO.}}

Or that kind of response, RE. Any topic will be boring if they have to spend any amount of time thinking of our common needs, showing once again, that the whole world needs to revolve around someone’s personal needs instead… right, Donut?????

By Magneto

March 15, 2007 7:07 PM | Link to this

RW,

You’re an idiot. I read yours and Doom’s comments from earlier today. It does seem interesting that we both are Marvel comic book vilians, but sorry, that wasn’t me. Is this your way of taking up for your friend Buy Danish(@@)?

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 7:07 PM | Link to this

RW,

I’m starting to think that Magneto could be Stalker Boy.

Same ankle biting persistence and loony theories.

By Daniel

March 15, 2007 7:09 PM | Link to this

BD: Yes, I have seen American school children and you are quite right! No, I am not talking about government control. What I am talking about is more subtle. I have often wondered why our government missed this.

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 7:09 PM | Link to this

Now, now Danny boy,

It’s not nice to truncate someone’s question and take away the entire opening premise. Ellipses are to take out extraneous verbiage.

I also didn’t say that you wanted to tax America to death, I said that lowering taxes encourages economic activity and for that I agreed with your earlier premise.

Amazingly you can’t even agree with a moonbat without them foaming at the mouth.

Buy Danish,

RE’s question varies greatly depending on what level of government you’re talking about too. It was just a simple minded question from a simple minded dullard.

By RE

March 15, 2007 7:11 PM | Link to this

@@

They are doing that in the interest of the public. Try feeding 1.3 billion people sometime and see what solutions you come up with.

You may disagree with it, but come up with a better idea.

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 7:14 PM | Link to this

Magneto,

You do understand that you aren’t REALLY a comic book villain don’t you?

Buy Danish,

If it is then pretty soon stalker boy will jump out of the comic pages claiming to have tricked you into talking to him and then claim that meant you were stalking him. These people errrr…comic book villains really need to move into the sanitarium with finch.

By Scooter

March 15, 2007 7:23 PM | Link to this

Daniel, you are right that government encourages fitness, not well, but they do. They can’t currently use the information to forcefully micro manage a society of “free” individuals. I want you to know I can say the same about republicats.

All the human attributes you ascribe to the benefits of government ecouraging health are correct.

As far as your assertion that healthy people are more productive, I don’t know. I know many blue collar workers who drink, smoke and party in general, but will be on the job, or job site, the next day and “bust hump all day. Also, I would assure you some of them could work both of us under the table on any day of the week and some are dems while others are repugs. Some call them the Rural Idiots.

Intelligence in voting, that can’t be? The libertarians hardly get any votes, every body else is buying the hype of tactical politicians. Libertarians want to go back to the original documents that kept most taxation and government services in our back yards. I know the federal government is needed, but the vast majority of today’s examples don’t show them to be very efficient, or affective. Now that we have the internet at least we won’t have to directly deal with some of the government employees. I can’t think of any physical government offices I like to need, can you?

You did seem to be very anxious to jump on me. Am I that much beneath you simply because I am an individual, with individual thoughts that differ from yours?

By bon scott

March 15, 2007 7:31 PM | Link to this

By LuckoDull - March 15, 2007 5:29PM -{{By AntiRadical March 15, 2007 5:19 PM We must never forget that it is the REPUBLICANS who are keeping the Iraq debacle going.}} Dam-n Spammie, that’s two for two we agree on.Shout it from the mountaintops; the candy a-ss pinkos want to bring genocide to Iraq and the terrorists to America, all for a few votes

Andy, you still don’t get it and you probably never will. The US emboldended the terorists by invading Iraq, ruled by a tin-pot dictator who never won a war (War with Iran, Kuwait Gulf war, the current “Occupation Sucks” war) in his life, and had NOTHING to do with 9/11. And he was actually very good (if very brutal) in keeping Islamofascists in his country in check.

Not any more. The Saddam sadist is gone. Ad now everyone with a gun shoots at eachother, as well as those “what the hell am I doing HERE” Americans.

Had we ignored Iraq and that p-i-ss ant Saddam and concentracted on Afghanistan and Pakistan (where the REAL terrorists are) we’d have a better fighting chance against the war against the real terrorts. You know, the 9/11 bunch. The group that was almost completely Saudi… but not a single Irsqi.

As it is Osama and his ilk are planning more 9/11 surprises (even the US admits that) in the safe haven granted by the US’s kissing Pakistani General Musharraf’s butt.

Be a man. Admit that invading Iraq was a colossal mistake. A tremendous waste of US tax dollars and a horrendous waste of American lives.

Osama is laughing. At you, Andy, and all your know-nothing friends.

Yeaaah, President Bush is the greatest anti-terror warrior ever. And the moon is made of green cheese.

And the GOP would win a lot more votes, and the US once again regain the respect of the word if basshats like you didn’t push the lie that Iraq was part of the axis of evil. Hell, it wasn’t even a cotter pin.

All the US did in Iraq was ignite a civil war that was inevitable. All the US could have done was eradicate Osama and his friends from Tora Bora and all the other Afghan and Pakistani “controllled areas” that are simply nests of unspeakable evil.

By LuckoDull

March 15, 2007 7:41 PM | Link to this

RW: There’s no sense in arguing with Daniella; she hasn’t had anything good to say about government since she was flying her Stuka over Poland bombing Jewish enclaves.

This life in America just doesn’t measure up to her exacting standards, nothing can be done to resurrect that glorious time under the triumphant rule of the Nazis.

Someday hopelessness will descend upon her, the thought of some fat lazy redneck laying on the couch watching TV on Danny’s dime will drive her over the edge; she’ll strap on the suicide vest and if her walker holds up, she’ll probably fizzle out like some democrat, all smoke and noise but no damage.

We hope.

Sieg Heil Danny!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By RW-(the original)

March 15, 2007 8:17 PM | Link to this

Remember just the other when finch/seeker/bonscott/seneca/mirror/slobberingdrunkenidiot wrote this?

{{{{{{I mean, I couldn’t make her errors of grammar, syntax and just plain ignorance if I tried. We Ivy leaguers are like that.}}}}}}

Now check out that 7:31 above:

emboldended (sic)

terorists (sic)

eachother (sic)

concentracted (sic-and maybe my favorite)

terrorts (sic-no wonder these fools don’t think there is a terrorist threat. They don’t even know what the word looks like.)

Irsqi (sic-those rascally Irsqis)

And I’m sure that’s the tip of the iceberg.

finch,

Just because you stayed in a bar watching basketball all day doesn’t mean you had to guzzle Jager all day.

By Buy Danish

March 15, 2007 8:32 PM | Link to this

Sybil Bon Scott,

Nice speech - a bit rambling as usual, but you got a lot of gripes in. Have you called Hillary Clinton and reamed her out yet?

P.S. Who are the Irski’s?

GoldieDull,

Maybe you think gazing at your navel, and dreaming of life on the commune where someone will take care of YOUR “common needs” is a fascinating past time, but I think it’s as dull and self-indulgent as it gets.

Remind me to keep you off my A list if I have a party and want lively conversation.

By @@

March 15, 2007 9:27 PM | Link to this

Oops! Sorry RE, friends dropped in.

You surprise me sometimes. You seem far too eager to let government intervene in personal lives. Why would you trust them to know what’s in YOUR best interest.

You may see it as the only solution for China, but what if OUR government adopted the same practice. How would you feel then? Quick fixes to long-term and complex problems rarely work. Intervening in the natural order will almost always end up with unintended consequences.

Here’s an article you may find interesting.

This dramatic change in population occurred long before China’s stricter birth control measures were instated in the 1990s. Instead, “the approach to lower birth rates was embodied in the flexible wan, xi, shao campaign” (Yuan Tien et all, 8). Although the strictest SDI measures implemented in the 1990s reduced the birth rate further, “The Chinese birth rate had already fallen to its lowest recorded level by the time these stringent goals were adopted.”

The male to female ratio in China is astounding and could impact China’s future in many negative ways. Google “China’s Population Control” and look into the future. Old folks with no children to care for them. A society of aggressive males looking to flex their muscle militarily. Scary stuff.

In this country you believe a woman should have a right to choose, but in other countries she shouldn’t? All countries and their citizens should be as fortunate as you and I are. It’s best not to screw that up by relinquishing our freedom to make choices.

By Buy Danish

March 16, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this

Make it “pastime”.

@@,

Yep, they call them “The Little Princes”.

It’s very clear that modern day liberals are the most ego-centric, amoral bunch of Americans ever, and there is nothing that is beyond the boundaries of ethics for them.

Satisfying their own selfish personal desires is paramount, and I think they see government as a big stick they can manipulate to impose their redefined codes of civilized behavior.

Question for you Libs -

Do you agree or disagree with Rosie O’Donnell’s thinking that Khalid Sheik Mohammed is a poor tortured soul who has been unfairly treated by meanies who run Gitmo?

By the plot thins

March 16, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

brilliant - only please please don’t use the Orwellian propaganda BUSHSPEAK term “troops” when you mean individual soldiers. It’s not just grammatically incorrect, it’s a euphemism to blunt the bad news of the New World Chaos. Troops don’t die, brothers & sisters and fathers and mothers die.

excelsior!!! keep on rocking in the free world