Mike Luckovich

By LuckoDull

April 5, 2007 8:02 AM | Link to this

Where’s her burqa?

Most normal people don’t talk to those who are trying to kill them.

{{{And who better to explain that threat, than B, Mijnheer B, Mohammed B? After shooting his victim, B started to stab him. In a last attempt to save his life, a desperate Van Gogh reportedly pleaded with his attacker: “We can,” he said, “still talk about it.” Talk. Dialog. Reason. In response, savagery. The murderer sawed through Van Gogh’s neck and spinal column with a butcher knife, almost severing his head. And that, Mr. Wills, is how Enlightenment dies.}}}

You perverts deal with these savages your way; we’ll deal with them our way.

We’ve had 28 years to talk to these animals about their hatred of us, it’s gotten worse every year with more and more dead American women and children.

Let’s give war a chance.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

I had to share this one:

I BELIEVE FOR EVERY SCARE a journalist falsely reports, he should be punished in a manner similar to the type of hell he was predicting in his stories. So, if you wrote that the entire state of Rhode Island would be buried under a sea of angry bees, then you should be placed in a tiny room smelling of violet, and stung relentlessly by millions of yellow jackets as the state song “Rhode Island, It’s for Me” is sung by the Providence Choral Group. Likewise, if you wrote scathing reports on silicone breast implants — scaring many exotic dancers into having their illustrious orbs removed — then you should be forced to pay. And by pay, I mean getting a shoddy implant inserted into your body. But not on your chest. On your face, so each day everyone can see what a boob you are.

al-Gore should be getting several “implants.”

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By LuckoDull

April 5, 2007 8:02 AM | Link to this

You’re going to lose this war in Iraq, liberals:

With Iraqi soldiers and Marines providing protection, the sheik and his tribesmen rolled through town, pointing at various men. The sweep netted 30 insurgents, including “Abu Muslim,” who was wanted for the murder of a jundi (Iraqi soldier). “He was just standing there waving at us with all the others,” one jundi said during the minor celebration at the detention facility.

You and Al Qaeda, losers.

This country of Iraq is going to be free and the people are going to live without fear of death.

No matter what you degenerate democrats do to try and prevent it.

Get used to it.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Bionic Blonde

April 5, 2007 8:19 AM | Link to this

Look, duller and dumber, the war was lost a long time ago. The United States has been lost for about six years now. Hopefully in 2008 we can come out of the darkness and let America be America once more. I think you need to start taking your meds again…maybe even doubling up on some of them.

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 8:19 AM | Link to this

So are you libs proud of Pelosi for going to Syria and lying about the message Israel sent?

I wonder what else she said that we don’t know about yet.

By Bionic Blonde

April 5, 2007 8:21 AM | Link to this

Look, duller and dumber, the war was lost a long time ago. The United States has been lost for about six years now. Hopefully in 2008 we can come out of the darkness and let America be America once more. I think you need to start taking your meds again…maybe even doubling up on some of them.

By Senate Ankle Biters For Islam

April 5, 2007 8:22 AM | Link to this

The Supreme Court in particular has a legitimate realm of authority as the protector of the Constitution. But the court’s proper role is as the guarantor of liberty. Its legitimate authority lies in its responsibility to protect the substantive and procedural limits that guard us against tyranny. What happens when the court abandons that role and takes it upon itself to weaken our protections against government power? We can now get a preview of the result. In the new environmentalist utopia, all that which is not permitted is forbidden, and we are all guilty until proven innocent.

Choking off American prosperity from within.

Against our will.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Bionic Blonde

April 5, 2007 8:24 AM | Link to this

Look, duller and dumber, the war was lost a long time ago. The United States has been lost for about six years now. Hopefully in 2008 we can come out of the darkness and let America be America once more. I think you need to start taking your meds again…maybe even doubling up on some of them.

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 8:28 AM | Link to this

Someone that’s posted the same comment three times in the first seven comments has a lot of nerve calling someone else dumb.

By IN THE NEWS

April 5, 2007 8:31 AM | Link to this

its still all about the italian letters - who forged them and who paid for them

By regulator

April 5, 2007 8:33 AM | Link to this

RW, It takes at least three times for you idiots to figure out what is written.

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 8:35 AM | Link to this

Hey PROP,

Wasn’t it Valerie Plame’s job to google that letter? When do we put her on trial for maneuvering us into war?

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 5, 2007 8:39 AM | Link to this

This is what happens when you send idiots abroad:

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. “What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel,” said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister’s office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that “a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel.” In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda.

This is one of the most catastrophic failures of diplomacy ever in the recorded history of the world.

Congratulations to Ms. Pelosi for garnering this honor.

Not only was the trip totally illegitimate, she made an unequaled as-s of herself, offering things that existed only in her mind.

They won’t stop laughing at us until Bush invades their country, which he should do today to save the idiot Pelosi from her place in history.

If she would have only listened to Bush to begin with.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 8:39 AM | Link to this

regulator,

That has to be the lamest excuse for your own technical shortcomings I’ve ever heard.

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 5, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this

Well.ell, the Washington Post agrees with me:

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush’s military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi’s attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

She should have listened to Bush.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By IN THE NEWS

April 5, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

HEY ARE DUBYA

WASN”T IT GEORGE BUSH”S JOB TO READ THE PDB THAT SAID “BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE US” IN AUGUST OF 2001?

WHEN DO WE PUT HIM ON TRIAL FOR INCOMPETENCE?

ONE PAGE READ, COMPREHENDED AND ACTED ON WOULD HAVE SAVED ALL THIS

Official DoD Count of Troops Killed in Iraq: 3243 Troops Killed in Afghanistan: 369 Wounded in Action: 25455

By Eric

April 5, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this

Look who’s talking about what “normal” people do. I guess Andi and Duhbya or normal. Yeah, normal morons. How can anyone expect to solve a problem you have with someone without talking to them. Good for Nancy. It’s about time someone in government acted like they had a lick of sense. Great effort Mike!

By IN THE NEWS

April 5, 2007 9:01 AM | Link to this

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM ALL THIS?

TRUTH IS A FORIEGN CONCEPT TO THEM

[Washington Post Misleads, Contradicts Own Reporting, To Attack Pelosi The Washington Post editorial page today published a vicious editorial attacking Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), calling her “ludicrous” and describing her bipartisan trip to Syria as an “attempt to establish a shadow presidency.”The editorial rests on two claims, both of which are baseless.] (http://thinkprogress.org/)

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 9:02 AM | Link to this

PROP,

HE DID READ IT. WHY DON’T YOU?

WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THIS ONE?

The 1998 PDB is titled: “Bin Laden preparing to hijack U.S. aircraft and other attacks.

By Kerry

April 5, 2007 9:06 AM | Link to this

Soooo, the reason for going to war with Iraq was so the people could be free and live the easy life? I’m sorry, my news break gave me another reason FOUR YEARS AGO for invading that country. And what about all of the other countries that would, gee, I dunno, like to live the easy life. Will we invade those countries also? Something about your logic is as fishy as this ‘war’.

By mike

April 5, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

So Mikey finally draws Assad. Is the cartoon a criticism of Syria’s aid to Iraqi insurgents who kill Americans? Is it a cartoon a criticsm of Syria’s repeated assasinations of Lebaneses leaders?

Nope. It’s just another attack on Bush.

Why do liberals paint dictators as the “good guy”? It just demonstrates their complete lack of intellectual and moral integrity.

By Paul

April 5, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

Speaker of the Dhimmis 8:39

RW - (the original)

Look, the Democratic Party has the high ground on truthful representation. They’ve attempted to distance themselves from any responsibility for events in Iraq with the mantra “Bush lied.” Not interpreted differently, not emphasized some aspects over others, not came to dramatically different conclusions from the same data compared to his predecessor, but “lied.”

But the Democratic Party is, at least, consistent in denouncing lies and liars as they become aware of them.

So now the Speaker Pelosi “flap” with relaying Israel’s desire for new foreign policy initiatives with Syria. Uh, no, she didn’t misunderstand. She didn’t misinterpret. She wasn’t mislead by those who prepared the information. She (what’s the “word” here? Oh yeah -) “lied.”

Now to build the confidence of the electorate and to demonstrate a capacity for rigorous self-criticism, the Democratic operatives will begin their long, unrelenting criticism of Spkr Pelosi’s “lie” in…

Just how does one make the sign for “infinity” on a keyboard?

RW - is now the time I’m supposed to insert (sarc)?

By Candy A-ss Liberals For Poof Withdrawal

April 5, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this

{{{By Kerry April 5, 2007 9:06 AM Soooo, the reason for going to war with Iraq was so the people could be free and live the easy life?}}}

Yes, we should return these people back to the fanatics that formerly enslaved them. How dare they desire to be free.

I too get angered and fume at the thought of other people in the world doing what they want with their lives, they need some pinko telling what to think and what to do, like here in the U.S.

We can’t have this! Who do these Iraqis think they are? Somebody put some chains on them now!

(This message was brought to you by al-Gore and his merry band of candy as-s freedom eliminators.)

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By IN THE NEWS

April 5, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this

ARE DUBYA

DO YOUR INITIALS STAND FOR REALLY WITLESS?

Worst of the Web Today: Taranto cited 1998 bin Laden PDB as evidence of Pres. Clinton’s “inaction”

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

Paul,

The /sarc tag is kind of worthless since the people that have the brainpower to understand the post don’t need it and the people that don’t won’t understand the tag anyway.

It will be fun to see how the left spins Pelosi flat out lying about Israel without any chance of blaming President bush for it. Maybe Cheney uses his hurricane machine for mind control in the off season.

By IN THE NEWS

April 5, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

I THOUGHT BUSH DIDNT DO THIS?

U.S. Helped Free Iranian Diplomat Britons Released Soon After

By Tom Thomson

April 5, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this

Nancy Pelosi is clearly demonstrating her lack of understanding about the constitutional roles of the three branches of our government. The Legislative branch has no role in negotiating with foreign governments, so she cannot achieve any results by speaking with the Syrian head of state. Negotiations and treaties are reserved by our constitution to the Executive branch. Only the Senate has a role in matters of state in that it can ratify (or not) treaties negotiated by the Executive branch. Therefore Pelosi is only wasting her time and taxpayer’s money by traveling to the Middle-East to confer with foreign heads of state. The only good thing that can possibly come out of it is that she will not be able to so easily spread her liberal propaganda while she is outside of the U.S,

By LuckoDull

April 5, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

I’m I reading this right?:

{{{By Paul April 5, 2007 9:09 AM But the Democratic Party is, at least, consistent in denouncing lies and liars as they become aware of them.}}}

The candy as-ses think it is a sign of virtue to always, no matter what situation, be on the side against America?

The truth comes out.

And, as always, I was right.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

PROP,

GO READ THE 6AUGUST2001 PDB AND TELL US WHAT WAS ACTIONABLE. OTHERWISE GO BACK TO SPAMMING THE BOARD.

By IN THE NEWS

April 5, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

AND STILL THEY EAT THEIR OWN

Novak Floats New Dowd Smear: Bush’s Former Chief Campaign Strategist Is Just A Partisan Democrat

GIVEN THE CHANCE WOULD OUR DUBYA LAY HIM SELF ON BUSHS PLATE AND COVER HIMSELF WITH SALSA?

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this

IN THE NEWS,

I’ve got to take off, but let me give you some helpful advice.

It’s nice that you’ve begun to link instead of spam, but if you want people to read your links you should excerpt some pertinent portion of the article.

You’re not going to pique anyone’s interest by simply putting a link in an irreverent comment.

Your Welcome!

Later…

By Paul

April 5, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

IN THE NEWS

This could go on forever - and doesn’t give much direction for the way forward - unless one overlooks the various specific events and examines the overriding view of the two administrations: jihadism as a matter of law enforcement (the prevailing Clinton Administration viw) or as a matter of war (prevailing Bush Administration view).

Then it’s on to how to adapt the views to the reality of this “new” style of warfare - where by their very actions the enemy does not fall under prior legal agreements regarding lawful combatants.

It’ll get tricky, though. For every example of “Bush’s perfidy in attempting to subvert law” such as with renditions, one could ask “and how does that differ from the Clinton Administration’s precedent in working with Philippino authorities, who weren’t exactly serving tea and scones during their “interviews,” in breaking up several 9/11-style operations?

By @@

April 5, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

Your cartoon title is definitely on target ml.

Something in common? Yep, destroy this administration’s efforts against terrorism both domestically and internationally.

How did commentators in Syria view this visit by U.S. representatives?

“There was a feeling that this visit had more to do with domestic politics than us,” said one, Jihad Yaziji, editor in chief of “The Syria Report,” an online magazine, who attended a dinner in honor of Ms. Pelosi on Tuesday night. “If she isn’t going to be very different from Bush, then why did she come?”

If this big blue ball was a “chess board” (which it is), Syrians now see themselves as “the political pawn” in a power play between democrats and republicans. An internal war initiated by the democrats.

Hey……you know what? Those people aren’t as “dumb” as Pelosi, et al think they are.

Nice job dems!

Next move (foible)……….????????

By lars larsen

April 5, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this

It’s pretty obvious that Dumbya’s policy of refusing to dialog with anyone he disagrees with hasn’t gotten anywhere. Like the insane person that he is, he tries the same tack over and over again even if his batting average is .000. What a hack of a president.

I’ve been reading this blog for some time up here in the north country. Is andy dull really Bush himself? Or do we have two really stupid people in this country?

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

April 5, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this

-=-

American Spectator

OpinionJournal

Real Clear Politics

Wahington Post

Spamming Andy - Par for the course —

Trying to get that NeoCon “Green Jacket” I see…

Fore!——-

-=-

By IN THE NEWS

April 5, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

OUR DUBYA

ACTION: PICK UP PHONE CALL FBI ASK IF THEY HEARD ANYTHING UNUSUAL

SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE MENTIONED THIS

The Phoenix Memo

By IN THE NEWS

April 5, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

OUR DUBYA

ADVISE FROM FOLKS LIKE YOU IS HOW WE GOT WHERE WE ARE!

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 5, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

{{{By lars larsen April 5, 2007 9:34 AM I’ve been reading this blog for some time up here in the north country. Is andy dull really Bush himself? Or do we have two really stupid people in this country?}}}

Pinko Blog Regular: I ain’t sure which one of you bozos this is but I suspect the farthest north you’ve ever been is Cumberland Mall.

Stick it up your as-s.

You have reinforced my theory that the truth causes you liberals to be frightened and confused, to which you react to in an impulsive, ignorant fashion, such as as-suming the identity of a “northener” so that you can recite democrat party talking points.

This returns some sense of normalcy to your lives, to be cloaked in lies and propaganda reinforced by imaginary friends.

I’m glad I could help.

Problem is that most people consider actions such as these to be a sure sign of insanity, much like Pelosi making a trip all on her own and spreading lies that only she knows of.

You liberals really do stick together.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

PROP,

Shouldn’t your pet name for me be ARE DUBYA? See y’all at happy hour.

FROM THE PDB:

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

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

April 5, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

-=-

Habla’ Espaniol?

-=-

By N-GA

April 5, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

Paul,

It is my belief that most (not all) international conflicts have their roots in economic issues. One country covets another’s prosperity or resources…

While some wars have been initiated for political or ideological reasons, economic hegemony is often the underlying evil.

With that said, the position of the US in the world relative to economic clout is shrinking (much like that of Great Britain 100 years ago). The result is that the US is finding it more difficult to influence international events without the use of force.

There was a day when a simple threat by the US to direct economic sanctions was enough to get them to follow our lead. This method was effective even indirectly. That is, we could “punish” a country simply by using our economic “muscle” to get many other countries to employ economic sanctions against them.

While the US should certainly try to maintain military superiority, we should work harder to maintain economic superiority. Unfortunately our government continues to emphasize benefits to big business even though these benefits often weaken the US…and this is not a Democrat or Republican issue. (editorial OFF)….

By getalife

April 5, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

Excellent toon Mike.

Speaker Pelosi did a great job in Syria putting this administration to shame.

She showed that diplomacy does work and real leaders get thing done.

This is glimpse of the future and our national nightmare is coming to an end.

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

April 5, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

-=-

Ouch! Not good -

Another BlackHawk downed in Iraq.

By Paul

April 5, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

N-GA

Another congruent position, there.

I’ve just ordered a copy of Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations and the remaking of the World Order.” You’d likely enjoy it. To me, worthwhile books are not necessarily those written during an event, but those that accurately foretell trends - this is one of those. Written in 1993, he took a lot of flak for it - and now, looking back, it seems to be spot on in many respects. It’s reviewed here:

Link:Clash of Civilizations

Here’s an excerpt from Publisher’s Weekly: Huntington here extends the provocative thesis he laid out in a recent (and influential) Foreign Affairs essay: we should view the world not as bipolar, or as a collection of states, but as a set of seven or eight cultural “civilizations”?one in the West, several outside it?fated to link and conflict in terms of that civilizational identity. Thus, in sweeping but dry style, he makes several vital points: modernization does not mean Westernization; economic progress has come with a revival of religion; post-Cold War politics emphasize ethnic nationalism over ideology; the lack of leading “core states” hampers the growth of Latin America and the world of Islam. Most controversial will be Huntington’s tough-minded view of Islam. Not only does he point out that Muslim countries are involved in far more intergroup violence than others, he argues that the West should worry not about Islamic fundamentalism but about Islam itself, “a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”

So reading your post, this review, I think change is here - now - what candidate will be able to discuss this?

By Paul

April 5, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

N-GA

An add: several reviewers (seemed from a diplomatic or scholarly background) noted at the time of publication that in many ways, our notions of “democracy” are antithetical to Islamic core values. I’ve wondered about some exceptions - Turkey, for example, or more liberalism, such as Jordan - but overall, if some currently in office had read and thought about this thesis before the invasion?

Well, hopefully (as said yesterday) we won’t make that mistake again.

I’m about to sign off but will return this evening. Have a productive day -

By ed lorenzo

April 5, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

Diplomacy or else! – 745

“Georgie, what is with Syria? Have they discovered new oil fields? “

“Why do you ask?”

“Well, I notice that Nancy Pelosi just dropped in for a visit there, right after a Republican group had also made a short trip there. Damascus is becoming quite popular. Do you think Condoleezza will be next? Cheney? Gonzalez? How about Halli and Burton?”

“To be honest, dear First Lady, I do not know. Seems everyone now wants to play diplomat and solve all the existing crises. Next they’ll be trekking down to see Fidel, Chavez, Bill Clinton, Evo, Ghadafi, Chirac and Kim Song Il”

“So what is wrong with that, George? Your State Department has been sitting on their bottoms of the question all these years. You can not make friends unless you talk to them. You are an old cowboy and you ought to know that the best way to depend on your horse is to talk to him, pet him once in a while and feed him a little sugar now and then. Nations are about the same!”

The President looked at the ceiling and after a moment said:

“Thomas Jefferson was right, Lady. He also lived in difficult times and had to face countless problems, strong opposition at home and abroad and had to create the soul of an emerging nation that, even at that moment of creation, already showed signs of greatness, magnanimity and respect for the law. His concern extended to all areas of activity”

“Interesting, George. What did he say?”

“He said that horses needed better mounts. The existing ones, that were a poor copy of the British mounts, tended to cause skin injuries, same as the self padded buckle end bridles, the bits, snaffles and stirrups, and in some cases the hoof treatment and the shoes. You see, if the leather that you use had not been properly… “

“Thank you George. See you in Damascus!”

By Joe Right

April 5, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

I would rather see a cartoon by Luckovich showing Pelosi during her meeting with Assad looking at her watch and saying “Oh my..I gotta go, I’ll be late to my meeting with Mr. Bin Laden”

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

April 5, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

-=-

Hey Joe Right —

It wasn’t Pelosi that is friends with Bin’ Ladens Family. That would be Dubya’s Honor,…

That would be the Bush Family who have had business dealing and been good bud’s long before 9-11. Now I wonder why so many of the Bin Laden family was in America during 9-11, before Dubya’ decided to help fly them out of town during the no-fly period. Even worse they tried to hide that little bit of information too.

Pelosi is promoting Diplomacy and Peace -= You and your Ilk’ are promoting the never-ending war.

You suffer like the rest of the neonuts from the disease called Nationalism.

“Nationalism - The Disease that gives you dilusions of Patriotism”

Thomas/PNAC

By We don't know you, Luckodull

April 5, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

Luckodull,

When is the wife’s graduation ceremony from Kennesaw?

By LuckoDull

April 5, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

{{{By We don’t know you, Luckodull April 5, 2007 10:55 AM Luckodull, When is the wife’s graduation ceremony from Kennesaw?}}}

Pardon me?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By One Voice

April 5, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

Yes, the administration is so inept at diplomacy that the Speaker of the House has to go to the Middle East to get something, anything done. After six years w is still in need of training wheels. Rice is good for photo ops but can’t get jack done. Everything that w or cheney touch turns to shiite (pun intended). Please, Maddam Speaker, releave the incompetents of any responsibility.

By Joe Right

April 5, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Typical lib response, lies, distortion, and spin. Did I say Bin Laden, or Bin Laden’s family?

By George

April 5, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

Dull has a wife????

By Midori

April 5, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

Watch this video of one more Bush supporter and a few more lies, via Rachel Maddow. Another day, another couple of lies. This one about Carol Lam, former U.S. Attorney General based in Sand Diego, who was fired in the recent USAt. firing scandal.

One revealing aspect of this story is that all of these USAs [ed.] were appointed by Bush, and now, no surprise, Bush supporters are going after them with a vengeance. (More cannibalism here.) Here’s what Bushite Republican senator Orrin Hatch said about Carol Lam, who, again, was appointed by President Bush in 2002:

She’s a former law professor; no prosecutorial experience; and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton.

Tuesday she checked with Carol Lam’s people, who said that not only had she had nothing to do with the Clinton campaign, Hatch was also, um, misspeaking, when he said she was a former law professor with no prosecutorial experience - she had 15 years worth of experience, though she’d never been a law professor.

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

April 5, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

-=-

Yes Joe Right - You DID say Bin Laden’!

—

And just like Mike Tyson’s wife - The hits keep on coming’—

-=-

By Joe Right

April 5, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

Thank you, and by the way do you ever wonder what your hero, Bill Clinton would have done with Bin Laden’s family? Of course, keeping in mind he could not even bring himself to secure the capture of Bin Laden himself.

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

PNAC: The frak show is out early today. They have lost America. Nancy Pelosi is a great American and teriffic Diplomat! She accomplished in one trip something Bush couldn’t do in a lifetime. We have known for long Bush is incompetent [Ask: Robert Novak] America knows he is a bungler. Now, the world knows. The current leadership of the republican party fears talent. Oh, by the way, Bill Richardson is on his way to North Korea. Bush is, finally, fading into obscurity. Thank God!

By LuckoDull

April 5, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

{{{By George April 5, 2007 11:15 AM Dull has a wife????}}}

Isn’t it just so typical of a liberal to go to stalking your family over some stupid political blog?

I guess when your mind is small, helpless and overburdened, these are the kind of responses you formulate when confronted with the truth.

But what ever, if I was educating my wife it would be at Harvard or Yale, somewhere more in line with my income level.

But you keep digging loser, with the friendly warning that the closer you get to me, the closer you get to the afterlife, what ever that may be for you perverts.

All I need from you is a latent fingerprint.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

Bush is a liar. America is weary of the Bush rictus. Bush lied about the Iraq threat. Bush lied about Iraq and Al Qaeda. He lied about the progress of the war. Then, he lied about Iraq and the War on Terror. Bush lied about Iraq and 9/11. He lied about the Iraq Civil War.

By Midori

April 5, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

ATTENTION LIBERALS!!! YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN YOUR MARCHING ORDERS!!! GO FORTH AND SPREAD THE WORD!!

By Socrates

April 5, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

I come seeking guidance from the wise pro-Bush supporters who love America, war and hate liberals.

Question:

As I understand Bush’s doctrine of pre-emption we can not, in a post-9/11 world, tolerate states with WMD’s who harbor terrorists. Those countries with that lethal mix will be invaded, their leaders overthrown, and in its place will spring a flowering Jeffersonian democracy will emerge.

Bin Laden is in Pakistan. Pakistan has nukes. And Pakistan won’t let us go in and kill the terrorists who committed 9/11 because Pakistan, and I’m quoting Bush himself, “is a soveriegn nation.”

Please somebody, anybody explain why the doctrine of pre-emption justifies us invading Iraq (no Al-Queda, no WMD’s) but not Pakistan where Bin Laden and nukes are.

I know the right wing nut jobs here are capable of a lucid, intelligent explanation.

I’m waiting.

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

April 5, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

-=-

Joe Right or RW, Andy, or whoever you really are on the blog.

ohhh - Blame it on Bill — lol - it’s the “NeoCon Broken Record” all over again.

Bill served his country as President and did his job’! And did a great job too bringing us out of debt and into surplus for the first time in since Nixon. What he “MAY” or “WOULD” have done concerning Bin Laden is speculation.

What Clinton did in office is now history and fact.

What Bush did in office is fact too.

Maybe Rosy O’Donnel isn’t so crazy after all.

Or what about General Clark’s words

But what you choose to do is speculate and spin by constantly saying “Blame Clinton” - You are such a whiner and loser.

Can you not even understand that Dubya and Daddy Bush helped the Laden’ Family escape in secret after 9-11?..After a Carlyle Group meeting no less.

Well Clinton never did that now did he?

Oh and by the way - Where is Bin Laden’. Seems Dubya’ has failed to capture him. He’s obviously a loser too.

As a recent Vent said: “Clinton ruined a Dress, but Bush ruined a country.”

Cheers -

Thomas/PNAC

-=-

By Buy Danish

April 5, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

Daniel,

I have a reading suggestion for you. It’s at your level and perfectly mirrors your writing “style”.

Fun with Dick and Jane.

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 5, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Look at this sh-it, Pelosi lied before the elections, lied after the elections, lied about the troop withdrawal, minimum wage, 5 day work week, the “most honest Congress in history” or whatever that lie was, reducing the deficit, not raising taxes on the poor, her first foreign policy experience ever she tells the biggest bald faced unsubstantiated lie in History like some lunatic escaped from the asylum, what is panty waist sissy as-s Nazi Daniel whining about this morning, Bush, of course:

{{{By Daniel April 5, 2007 11:45 AM Bush is a liar.}}}

Freaking Senate subcommittees, foreign investigations and who knows what legal entities have all backed up every word Bush has ever said.

Prove one “lie,” just one freaking “lie.”

If this candy as-s takes lies from democrats hook, line and sinker but then makes false accusations about Bush, where do you think his heart is really at?

Any guesses?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz.

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

Midori: Last year in Mahmoudiya, Iraq Five American Soldiers entered a home. They stalked it for some time. In it was a fourteen year old girl. They took her to a back room and repeatedly raped her. They then killed her and her parents. They shot them in the back of their heads. American trained forces put a weapon to the back of the head of a fourteen year old girl and blew her brains out. They wern’t satisfied to merely rape her many times. They have all admitted the crimes.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

Andy spews another threat.

Sigh.

Call the FBI again RW.

BTW, why not post the memo w ignored and said you covered your a*? 9/11 happened because he ignored the threat.

Geeez.

By steve-o

April 5, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

LuckoDull,

What did the Hastert the Fatbastard congress do 2001-2006 besides grab the ankles for Dumbya, slice off fatty cuts of pork for bridges to nowhere, come to the rescue of a vegetable, and chase young interns around the rotunda?

By LuckoDull

April 5, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

{{{By getalife April 5, 2007 12:00 PM Andy spews another threat.}}}

That was no threat.

That was just the facts.

I am not British.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

It must suk for the wingnuts when Speaker Pelosi accomplished more in one trip than w his his whole Presidency.

Geez.

By Midori

April 5, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

Calm down, Daniel — I’m on your side :)

I just thought that toon was too funny for words :)

When I heard about the brutality of that attack, it made me physically ill.

and then I saw a picture of her when she was a little girl

she was destined to be such a beauty - you could see it.

I hope the guys who did that rot and fry and h$ll.

By steve-o

April 5, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Midori,

Another great link! (sorry if the compliment seems insincere—Soros called and made me post a compliment to you.)

By Socrates

April 5, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

I come seeking guidance from the wise pro-Bush supporters who love America, war and hate liberals.

Question:

As I understand Bush’s doctrine of pre-emption we can not, in a post-9/11 world, tolerate states with WMD’s who harbor terrorists. Those countries with that lethal mix will be invaded, their leaders overthrown, and in its place will spring a flowering Jeffersonian democracy will emerge.

Bin Laden is in Pakistan. Pakistan has nukes. And Pakistan won’t let us go in and kill the terrorists who committed 9/11 because Pakistan, and I’m quoting Bush himself, “is a soveriegn nation.”

Please somebody, anybody explain why the doctrine of pre-emption justifies us invading Iraq (no Al-Queda, no WMD’s) but not Pakistan where Bin Laden and nukes are.

I know the right wing nut jobs here are capable of a lucid, intelligent explanation.

I’m still waiting.

By For the Record ....

April 5, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

Andy,

You should have written “… if I WERE educating my wife ….”

Use the subjunctive mood when citing a condition contrary to fact.

(Mrs. Dull would have to be significantly smarter than you are to matriculate at a reputable junior college, much less the Ivy League.)

By Midori

April 5, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

LOL, Steve-o

Soros is all powerful - you had no choice but to obey :)

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 5, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

{{{By steve-o April 5, 2007 12:02 PM LuckoDull, What did the Hastert the Fatbastard congress do 2001-2006}}}

Steve-O: What do you think I am, C-Span?

Were you born January 20th, 2007?

What a childish question.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Power of Light

April 5, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

I am the individual formerly known as Doom.

Concerning Pelosi’s influence on the release of the British hostages: Criminals have always done deals with corrupt officials. This is nothing for the Democratic party to gloat about. As a matter of fact, you should be ashamed that they feel that comraderie with her.

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

Midori: I know you are. They all will serve long sentences. When America sends her troops into an unwinnable land war in Asia; the rape of children is inevitable. Bush is the criminal. Bush supporters are the criminals.

By Midori

April 5, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

Wolfowitz, who as Deputy Secretary of Defense was considered an architect of the U.S. war with Iraq, disclosed to bank board members that he had a romantic relationship with a senior bank communications officer, Shaha Riza, shortly after he was nominated to head the World Bank. Bank regulations disallow bank employees from supervising spouses or romantic partners, but Wolfowitz reportedly attempted to circumvent the rules so he would be able to continue to work with Riza. Informed by the bank’s ethics officers that that would not be allowable, the problem appeared solved when Riza was detailed to work at the State Department’s public diplomacy office in September 2005—even though her salary was still to be paid by the World Bank.

Before she was detailed over to the State Department, Riza was earning $132,660, according to bank records obtained by the Governmental Accountability Project. Had the bank’s board adhered to its ordinary rules, as Riza was shifted over to the State Department, she should have only been eligible for a raise of about $20,000. Instead she was given a raise of $47,340, whereupon her salary became $180,000. Then last year, she received yet another raise which brought her salary to $193,000. That salary increase not only meant that Riza earned more than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, but apparently made her the single highest paid State Department official.

After GAP shared the records it obtained with the Washington Post’s “In the Loop” columnist Al Kamen, and the New Yorker also mentioned the preferential treatment in a profile of Wolfowitz last week, the World Bank’s Group Association was “inundated with messages from staff expressing concern, dismay, and outrage,” according to the April 3 memo circulated by the association to the bank’s rank and file employees.

By George

April 5, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

Sorry Dull, of course I’ve heard of the Dull family. Andy Dull, Betty Dull and of course the little Dull. The Dull Family, you should be proud.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

By Socrates

April 5, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

I come seeking guidance from the wise pro-Bush supporters who love America, war and hate liberals.

Question:

As I understand Bush’s doctrine of pre-emption we can not, in a post-9/11 world, tolerate states with WMD’s who harbor terrorists. Those countries with that lethal mix will be invaded, their leaders overthrown, and in its place will spring a flowering Jeffersonian democracy will emerge.

Bin Laden is in Pakistan. Pakistan has nukes. And Pakistan won’t let us go in and kill the terrorists who committed 9/11 because Pakistan, and I’m quoting Bush himself, “is a soveriegn nation.”

Please somebody, anybody explain why the doctrine of pre-emption justifies us invading Iraq (no Al-Queda, no WMD’s) but not Pakistan where Bin Laden and nukes are.

I know the right wing nut jobs here are capable of a lucid, intelligent explanation.

I’m still waiting.

By Power of Light

April 5, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

Socrates,

The reason is because Pakistan is not harboring Bin Laden for his protection or his support. They have been and continue to aid us in the war on terror and in finding exactly where Bin Laden is. Once they or we find him he will be a dead man.They are not a terrorist nation, that’s why.

By Republican Voter Registration

April 5, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (Reuters)- Florida officials on Thursday voted to end the practice of stripping ex-criminal offenders of their civil rights, including the right to vote.

Florida is one of just three U.S. states, all in the Deep South, that have maintained long-standing constitutional barriers to restoring civil rights to those that have committed serious crimes, rights groups say.

Looks like the Republicans are trying to ‘pump up’ their base!

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

Socrates: You’ll have a long wait. The right-wing chicken hawks you see hear are weaklings and cowards. Actually, there is a cure for rightwingchickenhawkitis! It’s called war. Put any one of these phonies in fatigues and a helmet, plop them in a war-zone and let them take a few incoming rounds. Never happen. The Bush crowd doesn’t wear the uniform of our nation. Never has. Never will.

By Power of Light

April 5, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Daniel,

You’re almost as dumb as getalife. Read the Light’s post at 12:30.

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 5, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

{{{By Daniel April 5, 2007 12:18 PM That little girl didn’t do anything to anyone.}}}

There are lots of “little girls” who don’t have anything to do with our soldiers.

But you don’t care about their suffering because you can’t use them to score points against Bush.

Which is just about as scummy as you can get.

Hey, if you can live with yourself.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Buy Danish

April 5, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

Dio aka Socrates,

Still desperately seeking attention?

Here, maybe this will help answer your idiotic question as to why we are not invading an ally in the war on terror.

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — Clashes between Pakistani tribesmen and foreign militants near the Afghan border this week have left up to 160 people dead, including about 130 Uzbek and Chechen fighters, the provincial governor said Friday.

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

April 5, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

-=-

Hey Daniel -

After Dubya’ vetoes the Funding bill because of the Iraq time-line in it, then perhaps congress should send the next one in without a timeline, but say that should the troops not be withdrawn by the date of (XX:XX:XXXX), that “The Draft” will be re-instated to relieve pressure on the troops and their familys after so many of these tours of duty.

Let the NeoCons share the risk of their family members being in Iraq’.

Thomas/PNAC

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

Musharaff isn’t playing both sides of the fence? You’re in denial. Andy: “The Bush crowd doesn’t wear the uniform of our nation. Never has. Never will. That’s you, pal. Plus, your posts, as always, describe you.

By Socrates

April 5, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

To the extent that they do not permit our special forces to find and kill him is tantamount to harboring. The result is the same. To suggest that they can dally around and do little or nothing to bring Bin Laden to justice and fall well clear of the pre-emption doctrine is to gut the pre-emption doctrine from having any meaning.

Are you saying that when Cheney says that “we can’t wait for a mushroom cloud” that he really means that if the nuke comes from Pakistan that’s ok, because they tell us they are trying?

The reality is that the pre-emption doctrine is a demonstable lie. It won’t be used again. By the way, it would also apply to Syria and Iran who we are not invading either.

The reason that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Pakistan are left alone is because it is in our financial, diplomatic, political and military interest not to invade.

When I hear these politician’s talk about democracy, freedom, human rights, no wmd’s etc… and then turn around and make China our biggest trading partner it is clear that what they is just meaningless words used to minipulate the ignorant so that they can use our youth to go fight and die so the powerful can stay in charge and line their pockets.

By Common Sense

April 5, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - Three Republican congressmen who parted with President Bush by meeting with Syrian leaders said Wednesday it is important to maintain a dialogue with a country the White House says sponsors terrorism.

“I don’t care what the administration says on this. You’ve got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country,” said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. “I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah.”

Bush sharply criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for leading a delegation to meet with Syria’s president, Bashar Assad.

The White House, however, stayed relatively quiet about a similar trip just a few days earlier by Wolf, and GOP Reps. Robert Aderholt of Alabama, and Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania.

See, there are a few Republicans with some ‘common sense’!

As far as the Chimperor’s hissy fit about Peloisi’s Syrian visit, it looks like Republicans outnumbered Democrats 3 to 1 in Syrian visits. King George, the blithering imbecile, can’t even bash the Democrats anymore without shooting his own party in the foot!

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

PNAC: Neo-cons don’t share the risk. They support the war, as long as some one else does the killing and raping forthem. Neo-cons are raw cowards. When Matthew Dowd’s [Dowd was a former aide to Bush] son finished Basic Training; Dowd came out against the war; turned against Bush; and announced he was leaning toward Obama! He got religion real, real fast.

By Power of Light

April 5, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

Socrates,

Why don’t you just say you’re against the war in Iraq and leave it at that.

By Joe Right

April 5, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Not only that, but precisely because Pakistan already has nukes, and Iraq didn’t is why we needed to go in before they got them, but then a liberal does not think with the head on his shoulder, does he? And another question, how come no liberal likes to talk about all the atrocities that Hussein committed, or how he managed to use WMD on his own people which it turned out never existed?

By Buy Danish

April 5, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

{{{To the extent that they do not permit our special forces to find and kill him is tantamount to harboring Blah Blah Blah}}}

Dio,

Try this.

US sends spies into Pakistan to kill bin Laden

My only question is who spilled the beans on this story.

By Walt

April 5, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

“By Socrates

April 5, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

I come seeking guidance from the wise pro-Bush supporters who love America, war and hate liberals.

Question:

As I understand Bush’s doctrine of pre-emption we can not, in a post-9/11 world, tolerate states with WMD’s who harbor terrorists. Those countries with that lethal mix will be invaded, their leaders overthrown, and in its place will spring a flowering Jeffersonian democracy will emerge.

Bin Laden is in Pakistan. Pakistan has nukes. And Pakistan won’t let us go in and kill the terrorists who committed 9/11 because Pakistan, and I’m quoting Bush himself, “is a soveriegn nation.”

Please somebody, anybody explain why the doctrine of pre-emption justifies us invading Iraq (no Al-Queda, no WMD’s) but not Pakistan where Bin Laden and nukes are.

I know the right wing nut jobs here are capable of a lucid, intelligent explanation.

I’m still waiting.”

Socrates, that is a really good analysis.

But it is way too complex for Bush supporters to follow.

Walt

By Socrates

April 5, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this

I thought the debate should be larger than:

Point: The war is bad

Counterpoint: No it isn’t

It seems to me that whatever position we take on important issues should be based in some sort of logic that can be supported by inteligent consistent argument. Too many people for this war are just for it because it’s Bush’s and the same for those who are against it. If Clinton did the same thing In Iraq then the positions would be reversed. The irony of this whole affair is that this war is a Wilsonian, liberal excursion to spread freedom and democracy which is supported by conservatives and opposed by liberals. Both sides ought to realize that truth.

By Power of Light

April 5, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this

Walt,

Unless you got nickjacked, the Light was under the impression that you were a Bush supporter. Socrates’ analysis is not good. It, just like most liberal garbage, looks good and sounds good, but when you take a closer look at it there is no intellect being used whatsoever.

By Efficiency

April 5, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential newcomer Barack Obama said on Wednesday he has raised $25 million this year, almost matching his higher profile opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton and solidifying his bid for the party nomination.

The Democratic candidates also outraised the top three Republican candidates in the first quarter by almost $17 million.

Republicans, do you know what it means when the electorate gets out their pocket books and gives the opposition a $17 million funds raising lead?

It means, bend over, put your head between your legs, and kiss your a$$ goodbye. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

Looks like the Democrats are gonna put the first woman AND the first black in the oval office AT THE SAME TIME! Don’t you just love efficiency?

CLINTON/OBAMA 2008

By Paul

April 5, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

Midori 12:19

Why are you surprised?

By Power of Light

April 5, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

Efficiency,

The Light doesn’t know what ID you normally use, but you are incorrect with your prediction. If the democrats win in 2008 it will be Clinton or Obama, not both. Clinton will choose Edwards as running mate or Obama will choose Biden.

By Walt

April 5, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this

“Please somebody, anybody explain why the doctrine of pre-emption justifies us invading Iraq (no Al-Queda, no WMD’s) but not Pakistan where Bin Laden and nukes are.”

Our military was sent into Iraq to stop Saddam from funding suicide bombers in Israel.

Pretty simple actually.

Walt

By Socrates

April 5, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

Good analysis Power of Light. (Sarcasm)

Can’t you offer anything other than conclusory statements to support your position?

By Walt

April 5, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

“Walt,

Unless you got nickjacked, the Light was under the impression that you were a Bush supporter.”

Bush is a war criminal and the worst person since Hitler.

Walt

By Efficiency

April 5, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

POL- Wait n see! Clinton’s gonna secure the lead and being the consumate pol that she is, Obama will get the call to be her VP.

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

April 5, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

-=-

Pre-emptive defense arguments are insane. But Dubya/Cheney have now used that to justify the Iraq takeover. I guess they ARE insane.

Now that this argument has been used by the USA in justifying an attack without clear and present threat (in defience of international law), then consider this. What if North Korea sneaks some nukes into the USA and detonates them and then claims that they pre-emptivly attacked us as they feared the USA was about to attack them and had no choice but to strike first. Due to what we did in Iraq, their argument would be valid.

The whole defense strategy during the cold war demanded that we not invade anywhere unless there was clear reason to. The Balance of Terror if you will of Nuke versus Nuke demanded keeping the peace. Peace due to fear of annhilation.

Well Dubya’ has defied “Balance of Terror” rules even and has invaded and conquered “A Sovereign Country” and had it’s leader executed.

That has put us in a severe bad spot in defending USA policy in the future.

Thomas/PNAC

By Power of Light

April 5, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

Socrates,

The answer to your question is no. The Light does not need to go on and on using criss cross logic in order to sound smart to prove his point.

By AMERICAblog

April 5, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

Froomkin explained it in his column yesterday. See, the White House press corps basically just take dictation. Bush and Rove know that’s what they do. Sure, every now and then the reporters act tough, but, in reality, they’ve become White House stenographers:

“Rove’s approach was very much on display yesterday at Bush’s Rose Garden news conference.

The president’s current weakness is profound. His war in Iraq appears to be a colossal failure, and as a result the public has turned against him and wants the troops home and safe.

But to hear Bush talk, it’s the Democrats who are the party of failure. It’s the Democrats who are defying the will of the people. And in the latest, truly dazzling talking point unveiled by the president yesterday, it’s the Democrats who would keep the troops in harm’s way.

What Rove can still count on, in spite of everything, is that the president’s assertions make it into the headlines no matter how dubious they may be — and that all too many reporters prefer uncritical transcription to the kind of tough but fair analysis that would be required to put what the president says in context.”

This is why CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux, a White House reporter, just spews the White House talking points when she’s over at the Situation Room. Too many reporters never question what they’ve been told. If they do question Bush, they’ll be accused of being having a liberal bias. Apparently, that’s a bigger faux pas than doing a bad job of actually reporting.

That’s also why the Bush administration can lie to the media over and over. The White House knows the press will never call them “liars.” It’s almost too easy.

Rove plays the White House press corps for patsies. And, they are.

By hippy_pinko troop-hater

April 5, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

If I’d known you could fire up a bunch of rednecks with the stroke of a pen, I’d be doing left-leaning political cartoons for a newspaper in an overwhelmingly conservative good-ol-boy state like Georgia. Hindsight is 20/20.

I saw this cartoon and thought: ‘You know…this one is pretty tame. Maybe Mike’s regular ankle-biting biblethumper brigade will take the day off…maybe get some sun.’

Wrong.

LuckoDull, We see you. Take a vacation. I promise Mike won’t take over the free world and sell it to Satan. I promise. You could spend that time handing out NRA pamphlets to kids for Jesus.

Ann Coulter is still alive and well; she spews more hateful ultra-right rhetoric in one 30-minute Fox & Friends timeslot than any and all of you could manage in a year.

Also, something tells me Mike doesn’t care what a bunch of middle-aged white folks from northwest Atlanta think. You could probably spend your time doing something a little more productive than criticizing art. Like fishing. Or shooting inanimate objects and calling it ‘sport’. Or paying a Mexican to mow your lawn, then complaing to your neighbors about all the illegals the pinko candy-a*******es are letting into our proud country. Or maybe even scraping the “W” sticker off the back of your SUV - not because youve denounced conservatism, but because youre tired of those punk kids down the road popping your tires and leaving flaming bags of crap on your porch.

Just a couple observations.

By Mrs Dull

April 5, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

Me Asian. Me go to school at Kennesaw to try to get education so I can escape from Mr. Dull who bought me from Laos as bride when I was 12. America #1. Mr Dull #10.

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 5, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

({{{By Anti Radical April 5, 2007 12:47 PM As far as the Chimperor’s hissy fit about Peloisi’s Syrian visit, it looks like Republicans outnumbered Democrats 3 to 1 in Syrian visits.}}}}

Sickas-s Spammie, Giggler At Tony Snow’s Cancer: Maybe those Republicans went on behalf of the Administration instead of totally own their own promising “peace in the world” like some lunatic escaped from the asylum.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

Since they can’t trust w, there will be no more breaks

Watch the party howl when they have to stay in Washington and vote to impeach w.

By hippy_pinko troop-hater

April 5, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this

If I’d known you could fire up a bunch of rednecks with the stroke of a pen, I’d be doing left-leaning political cartoons for a newspaper in an overwhelmingly conservative good-ol-boy state like Georgia. Hindsight is 20/20.

I saw this cartoon and thought: ‘You know…this one is pretty tame. Maybe Mike’s regular ankle-biting biblethumper brigade will take the day off…maybe get some sun.’

Wrong.

LuckoDull, We see you. Take a vacation. I promise Mike won’t take over the free world and sell it to Satan. I promise. You could spend that time handing out NRA pamphlets to kids for Jesus.

Ann Coulter is still alive and well; she spews more hateful ultra-right rhetoric in one 30-minute Fox & Friends timeslot than any and all of you could manage in a year.

Also, something tells me Mike doesn’t care what a bunch of middle-aged white folks from northwest Atlanta think. You could probably spend your time doing something a little more productive than criticizing art. Like fishing. Or shooting inanimate objects and calling it ‘sport’. Or paying a Mexican to mow your lawn, then complaing to your neighbors about all the illegals the pinko candy-a*******es are letting into our proud country. Or maybe even scraping the “W” sticker off the back of your SUV - not because youve denounced conservatism, but because youre tired of those punk kids down the road popping your tires and leaving flaming bags of crap on your porch.

Just a couple observations.

By Dull jr

April 5, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this

I lik to play with ma dad’s hand grenades. They go boom. An I lik when church meets in are basement evry sunday. Then dad baptaziz us. I lik bush. hes ma hero. Ma dad’s got a nice truk.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

Hilarious.

By not the Anonymous Legendary Wanker

April 5, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

snicker

By hippy_pinko troop-hater

April 5, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

I’m such a f*cking idiot. I moved here thinking I could escape from the welfare and foodstamps my mama had me on, but I was wrong. It’s seems that its easy to take the fool out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the fool. I’m stuck in the ATL with no homies to gang bang with. Damn. If I knew who my dad was I call would him for a hook up.

By LuckoDull

April 5, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

{{{By Psycho Andy Stalker April 5, 2007 1:20 PM Or paying a Mexican to mow your lawn}}}

I do my own yardwork and it shows, the yard looks good too (-;

{{{{Also, something tells me Mike doesn’t care what a bunch of middle-aged white folks from northwest Atlanta think.}}}}

Duh. Mike is a middle aged white folk from north Atlanta, you moron.

What you should be saying is that Mikey’s guilty white pinko elitist conscience won’t let him be proud of himself in public and stop apologizing profusely for things he hasn’t done and has no control over.

But of course neither you nor him can be honest about anything.

Speaking of obsessed: You’re stalking ME, numbnuts.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this

Poor Andy.

Geez.

By Buy Danish

April 5, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

Rules for Engagement responsible for Brits capture by Iranian nice guys?

Critics have said the British military’s vague rules of engagement on when force can be used may have contributed to the capture and subsequent standoff.//U.S. forces in the region operate under stricter rules of engagement, which allow them to use force if hostile boats or ships come too close. It appears the British rules were lax in that the Iranians were able to get close enough to seize the sailors.//Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army officer, said the American code of conduct is clear: Troops and officers will never surrender if they still have the means to resist.//”Had the captured sailors and marines been Americans, they should have fought and, if necessary, died resisting,” Mr. Maginnis said. “Of course, that’s likely why the Iranians went after Brits and not Americans.”

By Power of Light

April 5, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

The Light thinks its wonderful that Atlanta lead the nation in growth since 2000. That also, unfortunately means that we’ll be leading in traffic shortly.

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

April 5, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

-=-

Power of Dooming Light -

I think we will also lead the nation in the most authentic Taquiera’s growth soon too — (grins)

-=-

By Not Dull

April 5, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

America’s Broken-Down Army

For most Americans, the Iraq war is both distant and never ending. For Private Matthew Zeimer, it was neither. Shortly after midnight on Feb. 2, Zeimer had his first taste of combat as he scrambled to the roof of the 3rd Infantry Division’s Combat Outpost Grant in central Ramadi. Under cover of darkness, Sunni insurgents were attacking his new post from nearby buildings. Amid the smoke, noise and confusion, a blast suddenly ripped through the 3-ft. concrete wall shielding Zeimer and a fellow soldier, killing them both. Zeimer had been in Iraq for a week. He had been at his first combat post for two hours.

By Walt

April 5, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

“By Buy Danish

April 5, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

Rules for Engagement responsible for Brits capture by Iranian nice guys?

Critics have said the British military’s vague rules of engagement on when force can be used may have contributed to the capture and subsequent standoff.//U.S. forces in the region operate under stricter rules of engagement, which allow them to use force if hostile boats or ships come too close. It appears the British rules were lax in that the Iranians were able to get close enough to seize the sailors.//Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army officer, said the American code of conduct is clear: Troops and officers will never surrender if they still have the means to resist.//”Had the captured sailors and marines been Americans, they should have fought and, if necessary, died resisting,” Mr. Maginnis said. “Of course, that’s likely why the Iranians went after Brits and not Americans.”

Lord, what nonsense.

The Code of Conduct was promulgated in 1955. Things were a little bit more conventional then.

If US forces had been in the exact same situation, they’d have done what the Brits did.

You don’t have the “means to resist” when you have hand guns and rubber boats and they have heavy machine guns and rapid fire cannon anyway.

Walt

By Bring It On!

April 5, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

Bush says he’ll veto the Iraq Accountability Act because it contains a timetable for withdrawal. If this law is passed, American troops will have to be out of Iraq by August 2008.

But will Bush really veto this bill? This is where the War on Terror clashes with Bush’s true goal: the Quest For Oil. Buried deeply in this bill is another item which might be even more important to Bush/Cheney than their rhetorical “War On Terror.” This other item mandates the sharing of oil revenues among all Iraqis. Well, that sounds nice. That’s the large print.

The fine print goes into much more detail. When this law takes effect, about 80% of Iraq’s oil reserves will be controlled by British and American oil companies. These oil reserves are currently controlled by the Iraq government.

By Bring It On!

April 5, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this

Yesterday, W spent an inordinate amount of Taxpayer Dollars converging in California to launch another barrage from his Presidential Propaganda Catapult. Troubling thing is the message is so stale, it’s falling flat. I suppose what we have today is the proof of what happens when the President of our Fair United States turns into a one trick pony:

“In other words, this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here. That’s the lesson of September the 11th. It’s an integral part of my thinking about how to secure this country — to do the most important job that the government must do, and that is to protect the American people.” -W

I see…right, Mr. President. I’ll believe that when you provide the logic that proves this will be the case. Broken logic and a sour situation in Iraq demonstrates that you are less than compassionate - particularly for the innocent Iraqis who are dying by the droves because you want to “fight them there, so we don’t have to fight them here.” Since when has human life become so expendable, particularly given the rhetorical commitment to the pro-life agenda the W, Rove and Co. espouses….

By Mike

April 5, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

From the Washington Post. While the Post does have its biases, it is not a left wing proganda rag like the AJC.

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. What’s more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to “resume the peace process” as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. “We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria,” she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. “What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel,” said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister’s office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that “a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel.” In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda.

By Mike

April 5, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

Of course, rabid partisans and America haters like Mikey can look at the same situation and only see another opportunity to attack the boogie man.

Counting the days til the AJC is out of business. Can’t wait.

By Midori

April 5, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

In the upcoming issue of Time magazine, out Friday, columnist Joe Klein considers what he calls the Bush administration’s “epic collapse.” He concludes with a statement that may make some wonder if he is hinting that the president ought to be impeached.

Klein claims, in referring to the president, that he has “tried to be respectful of the man and the office” but now he recognizes that the “defining sins” of his administration “are congenital: they’re part of his personality. They’re not likely to change. And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead.”

The Time columnist declares that the three major Bush problems of the year “precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).

Klein considers Attorneygate, compared to the others, to be “a relatively minor matter.” Still, it is an area where Karl Rove “has corrupted a policy area – like national security—that should be off-limits to political operators.”

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

April 5, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

Mike —

That is an exact repeat of Andy’s spam post at 8:39AM…

And the only news article I’ve seen so far that even says anything about this issue. Seems we would have heard from more news sources if there was actually something newsworthy here..

Thomas/PNAC

By IN THE NEWS

April 5, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

ALWAYS DOUBT THEM

Pelosi Challenges White House: If I Gave Syria The Wrong Message, Prove It

By IN THE NEWS

April 5, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

ALWAYS ALWAYS DOUBT THEM

Breaking: Republican Congressman Darrell Issa Currently In Syria For Talks The AP reports that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) met with Syrian President Bashar Assad today in Damascus. And according to the article, Issa criticized the administration while on the visit

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

April 5, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

-=-

Oh heck —

I just noticed -

It’s not even a news story it’s an un-attributed to author or source editorial.. Geeeze what you guys will pull out of your — well lets just leave it at that!..

Thomas/PNAC

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 5, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this

Thomas: No one except you needs any news organizations to tell us what a dolt, idiot, appeaser and turncoat moron Pelosi is, women hater too, we can see with our own eyes.

Maybe if you weren’t such a gimp you could too.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Midori

April 5, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

Mike,

I am counting the days when you stop counting the days griping about a newspaper that you claim you don’t read yet show up on its blogs day after day spouting the same old whiney a$$ crybaby wingnut crap.

By IN THE NEWS

April 5, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

SOME TIMES IT TAKES A DAY TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SMEAR DU JOUR

ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS DOUBT THEM

Kristol Uses Baseless Washington Post Editorial To Smear Pelosi

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 5, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

But since you asked:

{{{{he Prime Minister’s Office issued a rare “clarification” Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks.

According to the statement, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasized in his meeting with Pelosi on Sunday that “although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East.”}}}}

He called her a blooming idiot in a very diplomatic way.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

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

April 5, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this

-=-

I’m sorry Andy -

Does Pelosi taking charge of real issues threaten your man-hood?

God what a woman!

I like her!`

Thomas/PNAC

By IN THE NEWS

April 5, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

FORGET THE SMEAR DU JOUR

POKE THE NEO CONS ABOUT THIS

Washington - A major arms-sale package that the Bush administration is planning to offer Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies to deter Iran has been delayed because of objections from Israel, which says that the advanced weaponry would erode its military advantage over its regional rivals, according to senior United States officials

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 5, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

Oh wait, there’s more:

{{{{WASHINGTON — A botched message during a widely discouraged visit by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Syria this week has U.S. officials criticizing rogue efforts at diplomacy among U.S. politicians.

State Department officials said Thursday they made it quite clear they did not want Pelosi to visit Syria, a nation that is listed as a state sponsor of terror and is home to terror group Hezbollah, which started a low-grade war with Israel last summer.

Shocking officials in Jerusalem, where she had visited two days earlier, Pelosi said she also told Assad that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had wanted to relay the message that Israel is ready for peace talks with Syria. That came as a surprise to the prime minister, whose office on Wednesday denied any such conversation.}}}}

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Mike

April 5, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

Midori -

I am here griping about this rag because I was a subscriber for a decade before it became a liberal blog.

Newspapers are a public trust, and for the AJC to be the most liberal paper in the country, while “serving” one of the reddest of states demonstrates their disregard for the entire community.

I make my comments in the hope that someone in the AJC management gets a clue and recognizes that more balance might help them keep their jobs, while also providing a paper that is palatable to more than folsk like yourself who do nothing but post ignorant nonsense all day long. Do you have a job? I doubt it.

I notice that you didnt address the main point of my post, but liberals are always much more interested in stuoid emotional arguments than the facts.

BTW: I havent seen any of your racist bile lately. What’s wrong? Don’t you hate white folks any more?

By IN THE NEWS

April 5, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

HERE”S ANOTHER POKE ‘EM

RFK Jr.: White House rewards industry reps with enviro posts

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 5, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

Well, gee, another “liar:”

{{{PMO: Pelosi did not carry any message from Israel to Assad By Yoav Stern and Amiram Barkat, Haaretz Correspondents and AP

The Prime Minister’s Office has strongly denied that Israel relayed a message to Syria, accepting its calls to renew peace negotiations.

The bureau responded to questions raised yesterday by a statement made by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, following a meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad. Pelosi said she had relayed a message from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, to the effect that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria.

The Prime Minister’s Office was quick to issue a denial, stating that “what was discussed with the House speaker did not include any change in Israel’s policy, as it has been presented to international parties involved in the matter.”}}}}

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

Well, the Saudis have turned on w so now Israel is working around him.

Its an “epic disaster”.

Geez.

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 5, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

Huh, everybody’s “lying:”

{{{{As nation faces a grave threat, Pelosi assumes presidential power- Baltimore Sun

Congressman Tom Lantos, who is a member of the delegation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led to Syria, put the mission clearly when he said: “We have an alternative, Democratic foreign policy.” Democrats can have any foreign policy they want - if and when they are elected to the White House.

Until Ms. Pelosi came along, it was understood by all that we had only one president at a time and - like him or not - he alone had the constitutional authority to speak for this country to foreign nations, especially in wartime.

All that Ms. Pelosi’s trip can accomplish is to advertise American disunity to a terrorist-sponsoring nation in the Middle East while we are in a war there. That in turn can only embolden the Syrians to exploit the lack of unified resolve in Washington by stepping up their efforts to destabilize Iraq and the Middle East in general.}}}

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this

Mike,

Why are you here contributing hate for the paper you hate?

Your logic is wingnuttery.

Geez, what an idiot.

By Mike

April 5, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this

And for all of the crying from liberals about separation of powers, there is not a peep from any of the AJC communists about Pelosi trying to run foreign policy. Or any comments about her “incompetence”, either.

Could it be that the AJC board is driven much less by principle than by mindless partiship? Perish the thought!

By Crook and Liars

April 5, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

On Wednesday’s “Hardball” Chris Matthews went round and round with Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) about the Democrats’ emergency war spending bill. Marsha prattled on about support the troops, a timeline aids the terrorists, blah blah blah, when Matthews asks her a simple question: Is there any room for a compromise? Apparently Marsha doesn’t understand the question as she kept insisting that the only possible compromise would be for the Democrats to give the President everything he wants. In the event that Rep. Blackburn is reading this, here’s a little help with the definition of the word “compromise”: n. 1. a. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

Matthews: “The founding fathers created a balance of power and checks and balances between the executive and the legislative branches. I’m just asking if there’s room for compromise. I can’t find it from you. Anyway, but thank you, Congresswoman Blackburn…her answer is to let one side win and the other side win.”

By Mike

April 5, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

Your comments make no sense. Can you please restate?

Do liberals have any form of debate other than incoherent name calling?

By N-GA

April 5, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

In The News,

Bill Kristol is a Zionist Fascist who would have lined up our founding fathers against a wall and shot them in the name of King George.

By Mike

April 5, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this

OK I’ve had my five minutes of fun of the day. I’ll let you professionals get back to wasting your full day on arguing with anonymous strangers. LOL

By getalife

April 5, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this

Mike,

This blog is making money when you post.

Please click on the advertisement and thanks for the revenue.

Geez.

By N-GA

April 5, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

The administration’s apologists and spinners are doing their level best to distort what Pelosi accomplished. What they fail to report: “Pelosi is conveying that Israel is willing to talk if they (Syria) would openly take steps to stop supporting terrorism,” Olmert’s spokeswoman Miri Eisin said.”

Pelosi has also responded that everything that was discussed in Syria was said in the presence of State Department officials, and she encourages them to speak about those discussions. This is why the WH has not come out and said anything about Pelosi’s discussions. They let Kristol and other PNAC talking heads do their dirty work for them. The next thing you know, Kristol will get an Ambassadorship to Luxembourg or some other plum appointment.

By Midori

April 5, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

Mike,

It appears you’ve had your five minutes of fame as well - all hail Mike, King of the Crybaby Jerkwad Wingnuts.

By N-GA

April 5, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this

Hey Mikie…what do you mean when you say “anonymous strangers”?

LMAO you nitwit

By getalife

April 5, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

The Speaker is right again.

Wingnuts always lie.

Lets see proof Andy.

By Mike the moron

April 5, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this

OK I’ve had my five minutes of fun of the day. I’ll let you professionals get back to wasting your full day on arguing with anonymous strangers. LOL

As opposed to wasting just part of the day doing the same.

By Goldie

April 5, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

Madame Speaker Pelosi has shown this week what a small-minded man our current president is — and what an incompetent blood-thirsty Sec. of State Condi is! They can keep bullying other govts. all they want, and they’re still not gonna make any progress toward resolving the ongoing problems of terrorism and hatred in the Middle East.

Love the ‘toon, Lucko!

By Little Blue Oeb

April 5, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

Doonesbury tells it like it is

By Goldie

April 5, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this

Also, W should’ve been talking to the Dems in Congress for the past 6 years, thereby fulfilling his promise of being a “uniter, not a divider” and fulfilling his duties as president to represent the needs of ALL Americans—not just the ones who keep voting for him!

This idiot president thinks that a 2% margin in getting re-elected is “political capital” — consequently his ship and his party has sailed out to sea for the next few decades!

By Goldie

April 5, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Little Blue Orb— “permission to think it through denied”…

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

April 5, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

-=-

Bush doesn’t want Peace in the Middle-East. Un-certainty in the Middle-East helps keeps oil prices high and inflated. This benefits Bush as the corporations make more profits from sales. You do realize that his father own stocks in several Oil Companys which will eventually be passed on to Dubya’, Bro’ and relatives.

Furthermore with higher fuel prices - more money is made by the Revenue Department and State Revenue Departments, in sales taxes and other taxes.

To Bush this is a windfall for the national budget, while cutting taxes for the very companys that are providing this windfall for him.

Great shell game - EH?~!

Thomas/PNAC

By Goldie

April 5, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

Buh-bye Mike, with your “stuoid emotional arguments”, whatever that means!

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

LBO: Great cartoon! There’s the answer to the sobriquet: Support the Troops.

Goldie: The State Department briefed Speaker Pelosi before she left. State Department personell were with her in Damascus. The State Department said there was nothing the Speaker did or said that was inconsistent with American Policy in the region! The Right-Wing- Stupid-Machine has it all wrong once again. The more they rant the better it gets for America.

By Goldie

April 5, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

Daniel, that rightwing stupid machine has become just ridiculous — yesterday they were all baying about the scarf that Speaker Pelosi put on her head, like that matters for anything… And like Laura and Condi would NEVER do such a thing!

LMAO!

By Paul

April 5, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

Peoples for a Nuked 1:18

Actually, that’s a pretty serious topic and is not accurately represented in your post.

You may want to read a fuller discussion of this by Jeffrey Record in the Army’s “Parameters.”

Link:Premption vs Preventive War

Here’s an excerpt. Care to restate any of your comments?

The Bush Administration does not regard preemption as a substitute for traditional nonmilitary measures such as sanctions and coercive diplomacy or for proactive counterproliferation and strengthened nonproliferation efforts. Preemption is an “add-on” tailored to deal with the new, non-deterrable threat. But the question does arise as to whether “preemption” best characterizes the new policy. The Pentagon’s official definition of preemption is “an attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent.”20 In contrast, preventive war is “a war initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve great risk.”21 Harvard’s Graham Allison has captured the logic of preventive war: “I may some day have a war with you, and right now I’m strong and you’re not. So I’m going to have the war now.” Allison went on to point out that this logic was very much behind the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, “and in candid moments some Japanese scholars say—off the record—that [Japan’s] big mistake was waiting too long.”22

The difference between preemption and preventive war is important. As defined above, preemptive attack is justifiable if it meets Secretary of State Daniel Webster’s strict criteria, enunciated in 1837 and still the legal standard, that the threat be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.”23 Preemptive war has legal sanction.24 Preventive war, on the other hand, has none, because the threat is neither certain nor imminent. This makes preventive war indistinguishable from outright aggression, which may explain why the Bush Administration insists that its strategy is preemptive, although some Cabinet officials have used the terms interchangeably.

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

April 5, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

-=-

This will be fun in the attorney scandal’

Yes I was fired for not performing my duties as an attorney while performing my duties in the reserves!

-=-

By Goldie

April 5, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

I guess Andy-Dull is planning to write his own infamous war song called “Let’s Give War a Chance.” Great legacy you’re creating for all your kinfolk, Dull…

By Fran

April 5, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this

Paul @4:15pm- “The Bush Administration does not regard preemption as a substitute for traditional nonmilitary measures such as sanctions and coercive diplomacy or for proactive counterproliferation and strengthened nonproliferation efforts.”

Paul- We hear what you say, but we see why they do and seeing is believing! At this point……tell it to the hand.

By Buy Danish

April 5, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

Pelosi prevaricates (that’s the “diplomatic” word for lies her botoxed butt off):

“There is no division on policy between us and President Bush, be it on Israel, Palestine or Syria,” she told reporters before leaving Damascus International Airport.

Ha Ha Ha. The Syrian press are on to her BS:

[Some local commentators used that comment as a springboard for criticism of Ms. Pelosi.//“There was a feeling that this visit had more to do with domestic politics than us,” said one, Jihad Yaziji, editor in chief of “The Syria Report,” an online magazine, who attended a dinner in honor of Ms. Pelosi on Tuesday night. “If she isn’t going to be very different from Bush, then why did she come?]](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/world/middleeast/05pelosi.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1175791425-AyCu9jXWAGtEFWPcfC/xwQ)

By Paul

April 5, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this

Fran

Interesting comment - not sure what it means, even when I watch Terminator.

You may want to consider Libya’s renouncing pursuit of a nuclear program, the progress with N Korea or the progress with crippling terrorist networks in southeast (not southwest) Asia. Given many receive their information from mainstream media and that the Administration does a relatively poor job of trumpeting actual success, it is understandable why everything would be narrowly viewed through the prism of Iraq.

By Buy Danish

April 5, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this

Fran,

Ever hear of the decades of U.N. resolutions against Iraq? Ever hear of the Oil for Food “sanctions”, err, bribes? How about Hussein’s refusal to let inspectors in? How about violating the no-fly zone? It went on Ad nauseum for Kerist sakes…

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

April 5, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this

-=-

Paul —

Then I would say that this becomes a very serious issue indeed for policy of this administration now, as they really must define just what this war was:

Preemptive, or Preventative.

If it was Preemptive (which would at this point be hard to claim as it had no pressing imminent threat to speak of), then this would bring the war’s reason and authority into legal question. The attack was without merit according to law and policy.

If it is Preventative, then it is clearly an illegal and un-justified war as it is indistinguishable from, and therefore is aggression. That would mean Bush has flat out gone against all past USA policy and doctrine (and UN law) in this invasion.

The issue now is, that no matter how it gets defined by this administration, (if ever defined) they can claim no justification for their actions, and enemy countries can justify same such actions against us based on what we did.

“War on Terrorism” is a trap too. War on Terrorism and even on Terrorist commits this country to a state of eternal warfare. There will always be terrorist. They never end. Furthermore, how can you even claim to “Win the War on Terrorism”. It’s not an enemy that can surrender to you. There is no defined enemy target to declare war on. If you attack every country that has terrorist in it, then you will eventually attack every country in the world.

Perpetual war on an idealism will bankrupt this country of both funds and military strength.

Will this administration end it - or will they continue it?

If we continue this course, I see a dismal future for this country.

Well - laters Paul..Time for me to go… Sleep well.

Thomas/PNAC

By LuckoDull

April 5, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this

Global warming my as-s.

{{{San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, ((fresh from rehab)) after ((being caught in an affair with his former deputy’s wife,)) has caused controversy in San Francisco when he briefly opened ((his mouth around a local reporter’s microphone)).}}}

Ooops, wrong story.

{{{Strong and widespread cold described March this year all across Alaska. Temperatures throughout the mainland were more than 8°F below average and the most extreme temperature departures of more than 16°F below average were observed in the central Interior.}}}

Could it be the return of…… Global Cooling!

Run, run for your lives!

Suckers.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

Paul: They said that after the troops were on the ground in Iraq. Once they get what they want they’ll say anything. The fact is America’s attack on Iraq was illegal and immoral. America stood for over 45 years side-by-side with the free world against the Soviet Union and International Communism. At its weakest moment the Soviet Union was 1000 times the threat Iraq ever dreamt to be. Yet, the instant Bush saw the opportunity to grab Iraqi Oil he took it. This is classic right-wing “macht-politik”. When you have the power: Use it. When you have the inclination: Take it. Who cares whether it’s right or wrong.

By N-GA

April 5, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this

I think it was Getalife who was looking for corroboration on the Feinstein MILCON story. This report is from Dissident Voice, a e-pub that leans left

By Paul

April 5, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this

Thomas,

I’ll keep this short - hope to catch you before you sign off. I really wish you’d read the article before you responded - there’s an assumption of terms that is not accurate, concepts are mixed and the entire “legal” justification and characterization of prior US policy is, well, misrepresented.

I’ll also recommend to you (as mentioned earlier) a reread of Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” - it addresses your questions regarding war against jihadism in the proper context.

By Fran

April 5, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this

Ever hear of the decades of U.N. resolutions against Iraq? Ever hear of the Oil for Food “sanctions”, err, bribes? How about Hussein’s refusal to let inspectors in? How about violating the no-fly zone? It went on Ad nauseum for Kerist sakes…

Ever hear of the fact that THERE WERE NO WMDs found in Iraq and still never have been? First Republicans tell us that the WMDs were there, the only reason our troops didn’t find any was because Sadaam had moved or destroyed them. So if the WMDs ever did genuinely exist and Sadaam got rid of em, it seems like those sanctions you so cavalierly eschew were workin just fine before King George decided to have his ‘fling’!

By Buy Danish

April 5, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I think Fran was trying to say that we didn’t explore diplomacy sufficiently, which is of course absurd.

Daniel,

Do you even know what the word “fact” means?

My “opinion” is that you don’t have a clue what is a fact and what is the opinion of Left wing propagandists.

By Paul

April 5, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this

Daniel

There was no “they” rewriting history. It was a scholarly article by Mr. Record on existant policy and somewhat a critique of it application to the war in Iraq.

The oil argument as a basis for the war is really without foundation. We had access to all the oil we wanted on the world market. Prices were stable, as was delivery. But it makes for a convenient condemnation of the “Bush-Republican-Big Oil-Big Businees” machine, I suppose.

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 5:05 PM | Link to this

Fran: Don’t waste your time with those dimwits. Bush lied to get the troops in harms way. Once our soldiers and marines are under fire all bets are off. The right-wing loves killing. It gives them meaning and purpose in life. Bush and the right-wing hate machine is irate at Pelosi for talking with Syria. Peace threatens the chaos plan. War makes a ton of money for certain segment of society Bush is beholden to.

By Paul

April 5, 2007 5:12 PM | Link to this

excuse me, Buy Danish:

Fran

As you’ve just popped on, possibly the rest of the readers will forgive me for repeating:

“WMD” as a rationale was but one aspect. Regarding that topic, though, Secretary of Defense Cohen (Pres Clinton’s Secretary of Defense) said in an interview a couple of months ago he and President Clinton were “convinced” Iraq had WMDs. The incoming Bush Administration merely continued with the same fundamental understandings that had been held by the prior administration, although they did take a different course to address it.

As I asked this morning, imagine, if you will, that upon assuming office the Bush Administration had announced “Citizens, you know all those reports you’ve heard over the past years regarding the threat posed by Hussein and Iraq, the reality of chemical and biological agents, the devastation their employment would cause, as well as his stated goal to acquire a nuclear device, albeit much more surreptiously than he did with the Osirik reactor in the 1980s?

“Well, don’t worry. We don’t believe any of it. We really don’t think he has the agents, nor the ability to deliver them against US interests. We don’t take it seriously. We think the intelligence upon which the Clinton Administration made its pronouncements is deeply flawed, if not downright worng. We just don’t believe it. In fact, this entire UN mission and no-fly zone is a drain on our resources, so effective today, we will pull out.”

The question is, would the opposition Party (let alone his own Party) have said “Well done, Bush! You have it right!”?

By getalife

April 5, 2007 5:15 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

Peter Byrne is the only one reporting she resigned.

Your link is based on his story.

By Very Concerned

April 5, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this

Has anybody seen anything about Cheney’s comments at Camp LeJune yesterday?

I heard an unconfirmed report he was talking about the 22nd amendment (presidential term limits) possibly not being in effect in 2008. Some stuff about having lawyers looking at it now. 3rd term stuff.

The patriot act makes marshall law easier too.

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this

Paul: Oil is why we are there. Read Project for a New American Century. Everything else is BS. PNAC was written by the erstwhile crop of Bush neo-cons. Years before 9/11 they called for overtaking Iraq for the Oil. I talked with a vet who was in the first wave out of Kuwait. He said the engineers were laying the oil pipelilne behind their advance. Wars have been fought throughout history. Governments tell people reasons for war they think will work. The Iraq Parliment is weighing four contracts for Iraqi Oil. 2 British and 2 American Petroleum Companies want Iraqi Oil. They wil be the beneficiaries. Gee, how did that happen?

By Paul

April 5, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this

Daniel 5:05

I read getalife’s link at 5:15. I wasn’t aware Senator Feinstein had switched her party affiliation to Republican.

getalife - regardless of the tone or assertions of the article, Sen Feinstein showed great judgment in resigning from the MILCON subcommittee. Even if, as she will maintain, nothing was “wrong,” she took effective action to quell this issue.

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 5:22 PM | Link to this

BD: No one is talking to you. What are you thinking? Can’t you mind your own business?

By Tom Jacob

April 5, 2007 5:24 PM | Link to this

Mike,

Really now, do you think it’s a good idea for our 3rd in command, Nancy Pelosi to be rubbing elbows with a KNOWN supporter of terrorism, Syrian President Assad???

If so, Your even a bigger idiot than I thought you were.

FYI, I am not a conservative or a liberal. I think ALL politicians are self-serving BS artist who could care less about people like you or me.

But I do support the war on Terror because those bastards would kill your family and mine in the blink of an eye for no other reason than hate. And I’m sure it won’t be long before were fighting this war on our own soil.

Does it make you happy everytime an American is killed because it makes Bush look bad? I’ll bet you it does. I’ll bet it does.

Regards Tom Jacob Cumming, ga

By Paul

April 5, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this

Daniel

Gulf War I - pipelines were in Kuwait. It was a rebuilding effort.

I don’t think much of the New American Century or those who’ve written it. I will agree, though, that US involvement in contracting for future Iraqi oil production (not refinery or distribution construction) should not be done.

By Politics Aside

April 5, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this

Pelosi is hot, man. I’m 57, and I’d do her in a new york minute. Hey, how about that female british hostage and the ever-present cigarrette and the slow deliberate draw she kept taking from it, wow, now, I’m only 56 or 57, but I’d do her in a new york minute, man. Her voice too, eh? Imagine those low, demure intonations at night, cant you just taste the sex? Now, I’m only 58 or 59, but just thinking about her voice, the certain to be apres-sex cigarette, and of course the eyes, those bedroom eyes, (I dig, I dig, I’m gonna blow my cool!!!)

To: Iranian Prez Aminijihad. Sir, You chose to release the hostages on the 4th, and you walked away from the crisis with a victory and a lot of support from the jihadist and islamists. But what if you had said, “no deal” to Prime Minister Tony Blair, what day would you now pick to release them instead? Camera to Aminijihad: “Uh, I’d probably release them on the 14th…..”

Me to model holding case: “Okay, open the case with the 14 on it please……” (model fumbles with the lock, hesitates, tensions rise, camera to aminijihad’s face, he’s contorted and waving his hands, and shouting, “al queda, al queda, al queda”, model then takes a peek inside the case and her jaw drops, and she immediately puts on a veil and a burka and tries to make a run for it……camera to aminijihad’s lips as he mouths, “keel her”……but then the model was only foolin’ round, and she opens the case to reveal, “Osama bin Laden makes another video praising your release date”.

Camera to Aminijihad who says, “that’s okay, I’ve got a victory, I came her to commit terrorism, I’m happy”.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 5:27 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I am not sure she even resigned because Peter Byrne (hates her) is the only one reporting it.

There has to be more sources if she resigned.

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 5:28 PM | Link to this

I see that psycho Daniel is back.

Buy Danish,

It’s not even a fact that nobody is talking to you. How are things today?

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

Paul: Could they both have been wrong? Why is it that when the right is cornered, the best they can say is “Well, the democrats thought they were there”. Have you read any of Paul Ritter or Hans Blix on the topic? Did you read “Fiasco”? What about “State of Denial”? We were all lied to Paul. America has been betrayed. Bush ad nthe neo-cons were desperate for killing. They wanted war so bad they lied for it. America gets it. 70% opposes Bush on Iraq. It is time to bring the troops home.

By Paul

April 5, 2007 5:31 PM | Link to this

getalife

A good point. But the appearance of impropriety is all it takes. The Democratic Party doesn’t need that controversy - I cited her resignation from the committee as a good way to defuse the situation and limit the discussion. Not that it was “right” to do so, but it was a good political move.

By Fran

April 5, 2007 5:32 PM | Link to this

Paul @5:12pm- The question is, would the opposition Party (let alone his own Party) have said “Well done, Bush! You have it right!”?

Of course they would NOT have done so and the occupation has proved they would have been correct. The inescapable fact is that-

1) Either Sadaam never had WMDs and the rationale we were given for the occupation was either incompetently flawed or a bald-faced lie.

or

2) The sanctions that Republicans love to eschew so dearly were in fact effective and Sadaam had gotten rid of any WMDs that may have existed because of them.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 5:36 PM | Link to this

Tom,

We were attacked on our soil by OBL as payback for bombing Beruit.

They did not come from Syria or Iraq.

w ignored this threat while he is ignoring Al Queda in Pakistan planning their next attack on our soil.

Your beef is with w not a cartoonist.

By Paul

April 5, 2007 5:38 PM | Link to this

Daniel

I think it’s indisputable both administrations were wrong on this topic. The difficulty for the Democrats, though, it they’ve conducted a very effective campaing invoking “Bush lied” and have erased from the public consciousness any remembrance of such convictions held by the Clinton Administration. Now, with the core of the Party demanding immediate withdrawal and cessation of funding, candidates are having a difficult time of it.

My point wasn’t to say, well, the Clinton Administration thought they were there as to say there is an institutional process that continues, regardless of breaks in administrations. One leaves, another assumes office, and the same groundwork upon which assumptions and policies are built remains.

One of the biggest deficiencies in all this was the nature of American intelligence services. The reorganization was a fair attempt to correct the problems, but it didn’t go far enough - and you get but one chance, usually when propelled by disaster. Those opportunities do not come often.

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 5:38 PM | Link to this

Fran: Saddam was gelded by the time we invaded. The inspectors had been all over the country. There was nothing there. The phony WMD argument was for America. It was the bogus excuse to ramp up the country for the killing. Remember Condi: “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”. Remember the British memo: “They’re cooking the facts to meet the policy”. Bush lied to us. This is why 70% are against the war.

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 5:39 PM | Link to this

getalife,

She was on the Subcommittee earlier this year and now she isn’t. Are you still trying to tell us Tim Johnson is back at work?

By getalife

April 5, 2007 5:43 PM | Link to this

RW,

I do not know she resigned because Peter Byrne is the only source.

Did you find another source?

If true, there has to be another reporter not linking to Peter Byrne.

By Tom Jacob

April 5, 2007 5:45 PM | Link to this

Really, did OBL tell you this? Did you read that on some political blog, or is it your opinion???

By Paul

April 5, 2007 5:46 PM | Link to this

Fran

Hindsight is always great, but not a factor available to those making policy.

Personally, I think he had them but the capability atrophied. I have doubts about the quantities, though. I also believe Saddam thought he had them. My reason for that is his senior commanders around Baghdad issued chem warfare suits to their soldiers and had incorporated weapons release into their plans. When WMDs were not available, not one of them wanted to report the information to Saddam (reported in debriefs by more than one Iraqui general).

The sanctions were effective, to a degree - when they weren’t being subverted by our “allies” or the UN bureaucracy (Daniel: profit above principle is not a Republican disease). There was an impetus for war - look at the “child solicitation” charges brought against Mark Ritter - one of the inspection team leads who was a vocal critic of the rationale for war.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 5:48 PM | Link to this

Tom,

It was in his statement admitting to 9/11.

By LuckoDull

April 5, 2007 5:49 PM | Link to this

I got this dumb mofo:

{{{By Daniel April 5, 2007 5:18 PM I talked with a vet who was in the first wave out of Kuwait. He said the engineers were laying the oil pipelilne behind their advance.}}}

Anybody that’s been in the service should have spotted this one, the engineers lay pipelines to SUPPLY the troops advance.

What do you think those M1A3 Abrams run on, lying as-s Daniel, sand?

A great big whining bitc-h that lies like a rug.

A real piece of work.

FH.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 5:49 PM | Link to this

getalife,

She was on the Subcommittee earlier in the year and now she isn’t. I’ll be the source. She either resigned or got thrown off.

That other source, Peter Byrne, must like her since I like the idea of her getting thrown off for being a corrupt war profiteer better.

By Fran

April 5, 2007 5:52 PM | Link to this

Daniel- I’m willin to give em the benefit of the doubt and say that they may have been incompetent instead of deceitful. Nobody’s ever gonna be able to prove different.

Let’s not act like Republicans!

By getalife

April 5, 2007 5:54 PM | Link to this

RW,

He hates her and reported the supposed corruption.

We need proof from you liars like the Speaker said today.

It comes from the lack of any credibility and you will have to earn it back by the truth and the facts.

Good luck with that.

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 5, 2007 5:54 PM | Link to this

{{{By getalife April 5, 2007 5:36 PM We were attacked on our soil by OBL as payback for bombing Beruit. They did not come from Syria or Iraq.}}}

Does anyone else see how dysfunctional this is, OBL, from Saud, was p** cause we bombed Beruit, Lebanon but no other Arabs or Islamists in the region took offense with it.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

What don’t you understand about radical Islam, gitmo, besides nothing?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 5:54 PM | Link to this

Paul: There is no more deadly business than American combat troops on the ground in a foreign country. Bush cherry picked the intelligence to fit the policy. He ached for war. The Bush government wanted war. I will never forgive him for what he has done to our country. Their eagerness for war caused them to put our troops at their maximum disadvantage while the insurgents are at their maximum strategic advantage. Just one of the reasons Novak thinks they’re incompetent.

By Paul

April 5, 2007 5:56 PM | Link to this

RW (the original)

Sen Feinstein served on a subcommittee with influence over military construction funding. Her husband, therefore she, profited from related contracts. This took place during war.

Ipso facto, Sen Feinstein is a Republican.

Okay, enough fun. I’d be satisfied if those on the Left (let alone far left) were as condemnatory of this (let alone acknowledge it) as they have with Republicans in similar piccadillos.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 5:59 PM | Link to this

Med time Andy.

Geez.

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 6:02 PM | Link to this

Paul: The solicitation charge was bogus. The right cannot resist the ease of the “ad persomen” blast. Every Ritter point has made has been vindicated. The solicitation charge was ropped. There are no WMD’s. There were no WMD’s. The WMD case was bogus. It was intended make the case for war.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 6:03 PM | Link to this

Proof Paul.

After all the lies, I will never give the hate party the benefit of doubt.

By Fly Girl Pinkos For Al Qaeda, On Their Knees

April 5, 2007 6:06 PM | Link to this

{{{By Daniel April 5, 2007 5:54 PM Bush cherry picked the intelligence to fit the policy. He ached for war.}}}

What a slobbering whackjob, lying little bitc-h:

The Bush administration waited until September 2002 to call for action, with White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card saying “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”[21] In October 2002, with the “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq”, the United States Congress granted Bush the authority to “use any means necessary” against Iraq, based on available intelligence and Bush Administration statements to Congress and the public, that Iraq wished to develop and possess weapons of mass destruction. The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain officially began on March 20, 2003.

Based on evidence provided by the CIA, remember them wanker, I guess they were too busy trying undermine Bush to get the facts straight, huh? And Valerie did such a great job with 9/11 too.

Piece of sh-it.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Fran

April 5, 2007 6:06 PM | Link to this

Paul @5:46pm- Hindsight is always great, but not a factor available to those making policy.

I grant that I have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and that my argument is bolstered by same but we are talking about the Presidency. It is the President’s job to use a high degree of certainty when he makes decisions. Even his Secretary of State (Powell) tried to tell him that the level of intel did not satisfy that high degree of certainty that he was dutibound to verify before entering into WAR.

As Harry Truman once said of the oval office, “the buck stops here”!

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 6:07 PM | Link to this

Paul,

It’s an amazing double standard. It’s especially ridiculous coming from getalife since he first came to this board ranting about corruption at any level of government and claimed party made no difference to him.

By Paul

April 5, 2007 6:10 PM | Link to this

Daniel

That’s certainly a commonly-held view. I’m not quite as strident. I do think there were some in the Administration (Perle, Wolfowitz) who had been pushing for war for years and were effective behind the scenes manipulators (and now they’re off, reaping large checks and leaving others to clean up the mess).

I also think there was a convergence of circumstance - Saddam’s past belligerence, his stated objectives (note to others: stating an objective without the underlying capability may bring a strong response - in other words, when someone finally takes you seriously it may not be good for your health); the explosion of jihadist operations (after years of lower-level attacks and a mainly law-enforcement response); the dangers posed by a handoff of agents to non-state entities who’d already attacked the homeland; the belief that democracy would provide a bulwark against fundamentalist states and provide a peaceful transition for friendly states; reading Iraq’s educated citizenry, infrastracture and experience with secular government as conducive to this; I could go on, but I never view such developments as simple or reducible to one or two factors.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 6:14 PM | Link to this

Still hate it RW but it was a losing battle.

Its a fact of life now and the lobbyists won that battle.

Now the battle is with the truth.

Thanks to Dem oversight, we can win that battle.

Everybody loves the truth. Are you sick of the lies yet?

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 6:16 PM | Link to this

BRAVES SWEEP!!

By Paul

April 5, 2007 6:17 PM | Link to this

Fran 6:05

That’s another reason I have admiration for General Powell

Fly Girl Pinkos

Are you sure that’s correct? The Authorization that Congress approved did not state Iraq HAD WMDs, only that Iraq “wished to develop and possess WMDs”? Rather makes much of the discussion moot, doesn’t it? Possession not asserted, only intent? I predict either a maelstrom of discussion or… silence.

RW-(the original) 6:07

I believe it’s also called “politics.”

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 6:19 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Yes I’m very much sick of the lies. I suspect we have a slightly different view of who’s telling lies though.

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 6:21 PM | Link to this

Paul,

It’s not politics when it comes from someone that claims to be apolitical, but I see that getalife has abandoned that claim and is riding off toward a different set of windmills.

By @@

April 5, 2007 6:22 PM | Link to this

Stratfor brings good news from Pakistan.

“As many as 60 foreign jihadists, mostly Uzbeks, were killed on Wednesday in the South Waziristan agency of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), top agency administrator Hussainzada Khan said. The total number of transnational Islamist militants killed there since March 19, when fighting broke out between Pashtun tribesmen and al Qaeda-linked militants, has reached 200. Pakistani officials have hailed the fighting as a major success, and evidence that their deals with tribal maliks to de-Talibanize the area are working.”

“This government-jihadist struggle takes place in the context of domestic political instability due to the country’s ongoing legal crisis, which has forced President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to accelerate back-channel dealings with the main opposition group, the Pakistan Peoples’ Party Parliamentarians (PPP-P), led by former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Musharraf’s dire need to gain control of the jihadists could bring the president and Bhutto closer to an agreement, especially given that they are more or less on the same ideological page regarding Islamism and jihadism.”

I was wondering why Bhutto was allowed to come out of exile and into Pakistan recently.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 6:26 PM | Link to this

GFY RW,

Lets play a game of true or false.

Senator spewed this about the fired Carol Lam (Duke prosecutor):

“She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton”

True or false?

By Fran

April 5, 2007 6:28 PM | Link to this

Paul- You can say that again. Powell is a Republican I would vote for. I can’t for the life of me understand why the party hasn’t tapped him to serve, considering the quality of the current aspirants.

By steve-o

April 5, 2007 6:28 PM | Link to this

Andy/LuckoDull/The Narcoleptic Shapeshifter has truly lost his mind. His 6:06 and 5:54 posts are truly dilusional. Why can’t Republicans accept responsibility for their own actions?

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 6:29 PM | Link to this

I thought the Duke prosecutor was Nifong…

getalife,

Are you asking whether the statement is true or false or whether it’s true of false that “Senator” spewed that, whoever “Senator” is?

By getalife

April 5, 2007 6:33 PM | Link to this

Cunningham RW.

Geez.

The statement, true or false.

By Paul

April 5, 2007 6:33 PM | Link to this

@@

Thanks for the Stratfor update. I was just looking at my backlog today. Isn’t it nice some of those Pakistani tribesmen are finally tired of those foreigners!

By Buy Danish

April 5, 2007 6:33 PM | Link to this

RW,

I’m fine, thank you!

First Republicans tell us that the WMDs were there blah, blah, blah

Fran,

Clinton, Rockefeller, Albright, Pelosi, Levin, Waxman, Byrd, Berger Gore, and Kennedy are Republicans?

I know they are an embarrasment to the Democrat Party, but they’re all yours.

By Paul

April 5, 2007 6:38 PM | Link to this

Fran

My opinion, opinion only, nothing to substantiate it - I don’t think he wants it. He’s had an honorable career(s) of service, I think he’s still stung by his UN presentation, doesn’t care for the current state of American politics, and, well, just flat enjoys restoring Volvos and spending time with his wife.

By TW

April 5, 2007 6:39 PM | Link to this

Bush and Blair should be commended for not invading Poland in response to Iran’s shenanigans. I’d call that progress.

By Fly Girl Pinkos For Al Qaeda, On Their Knees

April 5, 2007 6:42 PM | Link to this

{{{By Daniel April 5, 2007 5:54 PM Bush cherry picked the intelligence to fit the policy. He ached for war.}}}

What a slobbering whackjob, lying little bitc-h:

The Bush administration waited until September 2002 to call for action, with White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card saying “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”[21] In October 2002, with the “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq”, the United States Congress granted Bush the authority to “use any means necessary” against Iraq, based on available intelligence and Bush Administration statements to Congress and the public, that Iraq wished to develop and possess weapons of mass destruction. The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain officially began on March 20, 2003.

Based on evidence provided by the CIA, remember them wanker, I guess they were too busy trying undermine Bush to get the facts straight, huh? And Valerie did such a great job with 9/11 too.

Piece of sh-it.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 6:47 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I have no idea if it’s a true statement or not. I do know it makes absolutely no difference. Did you know that she served at the pleasure of the President and had already served her four year term?

By Fran

April 5, 2007 6:48 PM | Link to this

BD @6:33pm- Clinton, Rockefeller, Albright, Pelosi, Levin, Waxman, Byrd, Berger Gore, and Kennedy are Republicans?

Yeh, but the difference is that those Democrats pursued a course of diplomacy, negotiation, and sanctions which seems to have born fruit if Sadaam genuinely had WMDs as you and those Democrats you mentioned have claimed. NO WMDs WERE FOUND in Iraq, remember? So the sanctions put in place by those Democrats you mentioned did indeed work and Sadaam was, thereby, motivated to dismantle or destroy any WMDs he may have had.

Our Republican embarrasment, however, jumped into WAR based on faulty intel that was he was dutibound to verify before such egregious action was taken and THAT is why we are where we are today!

By getalife

April 5, 2007 6:51 PM | Link to this

Its all lies RW.

Lies have a right wing bias.

Ganzo is practicing his lies so it should be fun to watch.

By Candy As-s Liberals For Poof Withdrawal

April 5, 2007 6:51 PM | Link to this

{{{By Paul April 5, 2007 6:17 PM Are you sure that’s correct? The Authorization that Congress approved did not state Iraq HAD WMDs, only that Iraq “wished to develop and possess WMDs”?}}}

Paul: Not only that, even though Bush “ached for war” he waited six months to give Saddam every chance in the world to avoid the invasion. All he had to do was come clean, we would have stood down.

Funny thing is, all the candy as-s EUnuchs told him to not worry about the United States, that they would handle us, all because THEY WERE GETTING OIL FROM IRAQ AND DIDN’T WANT TO INTERRUPT THE FLOW.

All of what I just said is a known, indisputable fact, Saddam kept good records of who he bribed with oil.

Now compare that^^ to what whining as-s Daniel liar has been saying all afternoon about Bush.

These libs are insane, raging with Bush derangement syndrome, foaming at the mouth like rabid idiot canines, oblivious to facts and receptive to the most outrageous lies that can be imagined.

All of them are.

It’s odd as hell to watch these freaks melt down over nothing but it’s fun too.

I like to poke at them.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Fly Girl Pinkos For Al Qaeda, On Their Knees

April 5, 2007 6:54 PM | Link to this

Don’t ask me why 6:42 posted again, I didn’t do that.

The Urinal playing my greatest hits or what?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Goldie

April 5, 2007 6:56 PM | Link to this

In early 2001, both Colin Powell and Condi Rice declared that they knew Saddam Hussein had no WMD capabilities — you can watch a video of their statements:

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of “containment” that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to “build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction” for “the last 10 years”. America, he said, had been successful in keeping him “in a box”.

So President Clinton may have “thought” Saddam had some WMD’s back in the ’90s, but weapons inspectors on the ground kept saying there were none, and Bush’s own cabinet were making declarations that Saddam was “in a box” — why do you idiot trolls here keep telling the same lies about what was known for a FACT on September 12, 2001?

You bunch of Bush-kissing liars!!!

By @@

April 5, 2007 6:58 PM | Link to this

Paul:

You’re welcome. I’ve decided to resurrect my adopted philosophy:

“You’ve got to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, forget about the in-between.”

It’s why I don’t engage here anymore than I do.

Negativity seems to be necessary to the leftists. Necessary to their well-being.

Human nature will prevail in how you want to spend your life. Kinda like it is in Pakistan.

By Goldie

April 5, 2007 6:59 PM | Link to this

Andy-Dull, RW, Donut, Dusty, Mike the Moron, and Boobs, et al — you’re all a bunch of Bush-kissing lying trolls. You have some kind of brain dysfunctions that doesn’t allow you to take in any NEW info — you just keep repeating the same ole tried and true LIES, day after day…

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 6:59 PM | Link to this

getalife,

You’ll have a tough time tracking down lies when you won’t even say who is supposed to have said them and in what context.

The fever swamps you dwell in, like Crooks and Liars, are notorious for taking things out of context.

Your buddies sure got punked on the Rove/Coptix picture though. Talk about true dwellers of the Land of the Lost, that suits you guys to a tee.

By Buy Danish

April 5, 2007 7:00 PM | Link to this

Fran,

What a bunch of unadulterated BS. They voted to authorize the war, and many of them they sent letters to President Clinton demanding a military response.

The server is acting up and the AJC curfew is about to go into effect so I don’t have time to give you a much needed history lesson.

I’ll be on the road tomorrow, so alas, if you’re interested it will have to wait until Monday.

Getalife,

Bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa makes NO mention of Beirut. He does mention Iraq repeatedly.

Here is a little historical tidbit from an analysis of that fatwa (when you’ve finished reading this, you can scroll down for the fatwa itself).

Thereafter, except for a brief interlude in Syria, the center of the Islamic world and the scene of its major achievements was Iraq, the seat of the caliphate for half a millennium. For Muslims, no piece of land once added to the realm of Islam can ever be finally renounced, but none compares in significance with Arabia and Iraq.

Iraq is the crown jewel the Islamists are after. That is a fact. Do you want them to have it, or shall we give Democracy a try?

By Goldie

April 5, 2007 7:01 PM | Link to this

{{All he had to do was come clean, we would have stood down.}}

Andy-Dull, you LIAR!!!!

By getalife

April 5, 2007 7:01 PM | Link to this

Damn RW,

You just lied about being sick of the lies:

“I have no idea if it’s a true statement or not.”

Do wingnuts ever tell the truth?

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 7:02 PM | Link to this

Paul: There have always been bad people in the world. America’s strength is in her adherence to the Judeo-Christian Ethic; abandoned by the Bush crowd. “Do unto others….”; “Love thy neighbor…..” and so on. Witness the anger of the freaks on this Blog! Where is the talent? Where is the diplomatic skill of a George C. Marshall? Where is the calm steady leadership of an FDR, HST, DDE? Whil;e the right-wing hate machine attacks Speaker Pelosi, Bush is on vacation. Name one quote from Bush that captures the American spirit and soul? Name one quote that reaches all of us? We are burdened with incompetents at the highest level of government. Two years ago I said the great republican party has been hijacked by the crazies. It is slowly being returned to good people.

By Goldie

April 5, 2007 7:03 PM | Link to this

Lie, lie, Lying trolls!

By Goldie

April 5, 2007 7:04 PM | Link to this

Can’t wait for November ‘08 and finally America will have some relief from the idiots in the White House now!

By Paul

April 5, 2007 7:05 PM | Link to this

Goldie

I’m disappointed. We were having some nice discussions with new information and considered (in some cases, reconsidered) viewpoints.

By Cheer up!

April 5, 2007 7:06 PM | Link to this

Why so bitter Goldie? No bush kissing going on in your life?

By Daniel

April 5, 2007 7:07 PM | Link to this

Goldie: They’re the 28%. Stay cool. 70% of America is on to them. We will never convince them. The truth is overwhelming. If Bush stopped short you would hear six noses and six necks crack!

By Goldie

April 5, 2007 7:10 PM | Link to this

Daniel @ 7:07 — I like that about the six noses — LMAO!!

By RW-(the original)

April 5, 2007 7:11 PM | Link to this

getalife,

From what I read about Carol Lam it sounds like an untrue statement, but it’s hard for it to be a lie if you won’t even show any proof that it was said and if it was the context of the statement.

To clarify, I wouldn’t like it if someone was lying about the woman, but it wouldn’t matter in the least that she was dismissed after serving her four year term. The statement you offer as a lie doesn’t sound like something that was said as an excuse to fire someone. Knowing you it probably is only a tiny fraction of what was said and then only if Kos isn’t lying to you again.

By Buy Danish

April 5, 2007 7:11 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

Do you have faith in David Kay? This is what he said:

My summary view, based on what I’ve seen, is we’re very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons,” he said on National Public Radio’s “Weekend Edition.” “I don’t think they exist.”// It was the consensus among the intelligence agencies that Iraq had such weapons that led Bush to conclude that it posed an imminent threat that justified the U.S.-led invasion, Kay said. //”I actually think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people,” he said.//”We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn’t change in the Bush administration,” Kay said.

By LuckoDull

April 5, 2007 7:12 PM | Link to this

President Bush Job Approval RCP Average Approve 34.2%

Congressional Job Approval RCP Average Approve 30.5%

Heh, heh, heh.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Buy Danish

April 5, 2007 7:16 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

Continued…

Take your rage to David Kay, the CIA and Colin Powell.

Asked if Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States at the time of the invasion, Kay said, “Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat.”

And, since Syria is in the news…

{{{Kay also raised the possibility — one he first discussed in a weekend interview with “The Sunday Telegraph” of London — that clues about banned weapons programs might reside across Iraq’s western border.//”There is ample evidence of movement to Syria before the war — satellite photographs, reports on the ground of a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don’t know what was moved,” Kay said.//But, he said, “the Syrian government there has shown absolutely no interest in helping us resolve this issue.”}}}

I wonder if Nancy Pelosi asked Assad about those convoys?

Finally, this story also has Colin Powell’s own words as to why we invaded Iraq.

By N-GA

April 5, 2007 7:17 PM | Link to this

Paul, There was no COMPELLING reason to attack Iraq. There were compelling reasons to do other things:

Put pressure on Israel to resolve the Palestine issue….or ELSE!

Get Osama Bin Laden!

Get the USA’s financial house in order!

Address our energy dependency!

Demonstrate International LEADERSHIP!

The list is too long…..

By Buy Danish

April 5, 2007 7:23 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

Bill Tierney, an UNSCOM weapons inspector talks here about where he believes the WMDs went.

Damn those weapons inspectors!

Saddam Hussein was also a terrible pollutor. Where’s the outrage?

Happy Easter everyone!

By Fran

April 5, 2007 7:30 PM | Link to this

BD @7:00pm- What a bunch of unadulterated BS. They voted to authorize the war, and many of them they sent letters to President Clinton demanding a military response.

Now that’s a little bizarre. Clinton was the first Democrat you mentioned. He sent a letter to himself?

President Clinton obviously did not take the bait for a military response. No invasion, diplomacy & sanctions instead which appear to have worked as NO WMDs WERE FOUND IN IRAQ after they were instituted.

Sure most Democrats acted to support the President in a time of national emergency. What did you want them to do, obstruct him?

I understand that a hyperpartisan such as yourself and your idol, the President, have no clue as to the meaning of bipartisanship but those Democrats you mentioned do and acted accordingly! That really just galls the hell outta ya, don’t it?

By Sam

April 11, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

All of you Clinton lovers, cowards and appeasers ought to read books like “the Body of Ron Brown” and the book Dick Morris wrote about Hillary Clinton. Because most of you get your information from rags like the AJC you have no concept of reality. Poor bastards. If Clinton had another term in office we would have had more attacks and Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest would have been running for cover. Get it through your heads, the Arabs hated us long before George Bush came onto the scene. Keep giving these humanity haters credence and see how far that gets us. Maybe next year Nancy will even vacation in Damascus with her good friend Assad. Whats her next stop Ahminejads summer home?