Mike Luckovich

By IN THE NEWS

July 23, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

THAT WAS FROM DU

By Max Blumenthal

July 23, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

On July 13, 2007, I visited Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery, where the bodies of American soldiers killed in Iraq were freshly interred. Afterwards, I headed across the street to the Sheraton National Hotel, owned by right-wing Korean cult leader Sun Myung-Moon, to meet some of the war’s most fervent supporters at the College Republican National Convention.

In conversations with at least twenty College Republicans about the war in Iraq, I listened as they lip-synched discredited cant about “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.” Many of the young GOP cadres I met described the so-called “war on terror” as nothing less than the cause of their time.

Yet when I asked these College Repulicans why they were not participating in this historical cause, they immediately went into contortions. Asthma. Bad knees from playing catcher in high school. “Medical reasons.” “It’s not for me.” These were some of the excuses College Republicans offered for why they could not fight them “over there.” Like the current Republican leaders who skipped out on Vietnam, the GOP’s next generation would rather cheerlead from the sidelines for the war in Iraq while other, less privileged young men and women fight and die.

By Duh stands for Democrats

July 23, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

{{{{{{By The Watcher July 23, 2007 10:58 AM Anybody who thinks there is the slightest possibilty of the GOP taking the White Hose in 2008 is truly living in LA LA Land. Bush is at 19% in Wisconsin!}}}}}}}

Bush isn’t running in 2008, genius.

This is the first week ever that Clinton has polled ahead of Guiliani, and that was probably a fake lib poll.

Besides which, lazy Fred is taking away all of Guiliani’s supporters, that’s why his numbers are falling.

By Paul

July 23, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

Watcher

The Rep candidates are doing everything they can to separate themselves from Bush and his policies. There is a carryover from approval with the President to a new election with new candidates, but I think you’ll see more emphasis on “traditional” Rep platforms, like fiscal responsibility, - plus some changes, like sidestepping the social conservatives and emphasizing environmentalism - maybe couched in terms of getting off our dependency on Mideast oil.

getalife

My ‘lies’? Gotten a bit strident in the week I was gone?

What was the lie, exactly? (Unless you’re a member of the farleft group who defines as anything that’s said in good faith that later turns out to be inaccurate, regardless of intent, current evidence or generally accepted scientific theories)as a “lie.” I referenced what Obama said as reported by MSNBC. I then gave the opinion that those (in this case, Dems) who oppose Iraq but call for American military intervention in Africa would not (that’s future tense) be happy with him and it could (that’s an opinion, speculation) decrease his support.

I asked if Cindy Sheehan was banned from Kos. That was a question. I seemed to recall she said when she announced she was going to run against Spkr Pelosi that the Kos banned her - said they were a Democratic web site, not open to others. But, I could have misheard. She said she couldn’t post, the headline was she was “warned.”

Link: Sheehan on Kos

Why would the right have problems with Obama’s comment? I’d think they’d be happy, as it plays to their “if we leave, there’ll be a genocide” justification for a continued presence. It also separates himself from Hillary (keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq) and would, I think in their opinion, be an easier opponent than Hillary?

By getalife

July 23, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

BTW Paul, right wing blogs do not allow “differing opinions”.

There are many “differing opinions” on left wing blogs especially with Dem candidates.

They discussed Obama’s comment and let it go but the right keeps bring it up to try to smear him.

If this blog was a wingnut blog, most posters here would be banned a long time ago.

Wooten is one wingnut blog that does not ban because of AJC policy.

doug,

That is a good question.

@@, Paul or duh may answer because I would like to know why people would vote gop at this point in time?

By The Watcher

July 23, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

Duh,

No Duh, Duh.

Bush’s shadow falls over the entire Republican ticket, genius(not).

And, that’s going to be ugly for the cons next year. No doubt…

By Not Duh

July 23, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Please don’t feed Andy/Duh/Dull/Suck or any of his other personalities. He has been banned from this site and just comes by to annoy people.

By IN THE NEWS

July 23, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

Democrats Lead By $100 Million In Money Race

By getalife

July 23, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

I do not think anybody has been banned from this blog.

Duh has a mental problem and he thinks he has been banned but keeps posting for some reason.

Duh.

By Paul

July 23, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

getalife

Well that explains the different perspectives. I read few blogs - mostly this one - so don’t know who is banning whom. The Kos folks say the purpose of their blog is to elect Dem candidates, so it makes sense they’d cut off people opposed to their faq.

I’d guess the rightwingers are saying “Obama wants genocide” or words to that effect? I wrote here months ago one of America’s greatest challenges in the new century would be to not unilaterally intervene in every genocide or humanitarian disaster where there’s not a clear strategic interest. All candidates (except Obama, evidently) avoid this topic like the plague.

Watcher

I’d guess it’s because some Republicans, who are extremely disillusioned with Bush and feel betrayed by his abandonment of what they see as Republican principles, feel one of the candidates may be in the traditional Republican mold, with the added benefit of ditching the evangelical/social conservative/single issue litmus tests that have dominate the party for the last eight years? Plus they see Democratic candidates as espousing only government-run solutions for every problem (such as health care) while avoiding the question of how much citizens’ money they want - plus they seem more prone to new military adventures around the globe?

Just guessin’ -

By DebbieDoRight

July 23, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

[[How can ANYONE, even the 28%’ers out there, still think this guy and this administration is worthy of respect and support? How?]]

A good friend of mine, an ARDENT Dumbya supporter, still has the GWB sticker on the window of her SUV. When I asked why she doesn’t take it down, she was LIVID that I would even suggest such a thing. She states that he’s doing the best he can because he’s saddled with a Dem. congress that won’t let him do his job — according to her, if not for the Dem. congress we could’ve won this war MONTHS ago.

Of course, I didn’t point out that the Dems just took control of congress last year — nor did I mention that Dumbya is Commander in Thief and his crony was the Sec. of Defense. She’s bigger than me by about 45 pounds, taller too. I’m no fool.

By getalife

July 23, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Paul,

Well, they are having the first Youtube debate tonight and that question might be asked.

I think there will be better questions asked but there are 5 CNN editors deciding on the questions.

By Paul

July 23, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

getalife

I’ve got to watch it. There’s a whole new generation out there with a different view of things (you know, the myspace “let me tell everyone about me” generation). It’ll be interesting to hear what’s important to them. I hope the CNN (a network that’s gone into a bit of a slump, IMHO) editors pick some of those questions - not just the ones that mirror what they’d ask.

BTW - another example of misrepresentation came when Obama said (near as I recall) that kindergarteners (it may have been discussed here) should be taught about inappropriate touching as a way to ward of sex abuse (much of which occurs by family members, boyfriends, girlfriends, stepparents, etc). Reps immediately took it to “Obama wants sex ed in kindergarden.” Sad.

Similar in sadness (pathetic?) response of Dems to Romney’s challenging Hillary’s economic positions - rather than answer the accusations or clarify the position to show it isn’t as Romney said, all they did was avoid the economic topic and do the namecalling/personal slam thing.

By Bosch

July 23, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

DDR, Shame on you! You should have pointed that out.

Since she weighs more, you could probably have out run her! :-)

By Midori

July 23, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

How low can he go?

By getalife

July 23, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Paul,

They had a 17 year old asking about the qualities of the candidates to win the general.

His fist election to vote and it should be included tonight.

Your second paragraph showed some intellectual honesty but your your third, I have not read about.

Do you have a link on that Clinton smear?

By IN THE NEWS

July 23, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

“Halliburton Co., the world’s second-largest oil services company, said on Monday that second-quarter profit from continuing operations rose 19 percent, topping Wall Street views, helped by new international contracts.”

By Paul

July 23, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

getalife

Is was from the Associated Press. Here’s a link where it was reported:

Link: [Romney compares Hillary’s economics to Karl Marx](http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070722/D8QHUJ480.html}

Romney raised a decent point - candidates who’ve not done much in private industry who look at gov’t as a better, in some ways, only, solution.

The Clinton campaign response was “Given how often Romney flip-flops, tomorrow he will be touting his membership in the Communist Party,” Kathleen Strand said.” Nothing about Hillary’s view, or in which areas gov’t can do better, or why private business experience isn’t all that necessary.

It’s a campaign of sound bites and personal attacks. I hope that 17-year old doesn’t get disillusioned.

BTY - just listened to some of the potential youtube questions. Some are a bit on the fringe or special interest, but they’re really pretty good questions.

By IN THE NEWS

July 23, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

Democratic Member Of House Homeland Security Committee Denied Access To Portions Of Presidential Directive

By getalife

July 23, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

I love debating political issues. It makes me feel important and wanted, a feeling I haven’t had in the last 72 years.

By Paul

July 23, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

getalife

one more try:

Link: Romney compares Hillary’s economics to Karl Marx

By getalife

July 23, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

72?

I am not that old.

Nevermind Paul, I found it

Geez.

By Lord Help Us

July 23, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Paul, gotta give kudos on this gem:

‘candidates who’ve not done much in private industry who look at gov’t as a better, in some ways, only, solution.’

I bet you can’t imagine who comes to mind…

By IN THE NEWS

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

Why Removal of Bush and Cheney from Office Needs to Be Done Soon

By getalife

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

I’m 71.

Geez.

By getalife

July 23, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

Stop wanking duh.

By DebbieDoRight

July 23, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

[[DDR, Shame on you! You should have pointed that out. Since she weighs more, you could probably have out run her! :-)]]

Too funny!!!!

By getalife

July 23, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

I wonder if Chris hansen is still investigating me? It’s been a while, but if anyone wants to know what I look like I will be making my television debut this Wednesday at 10E/9C on Dateline NBC’s “To Catch a Predator”.

By Paul

July 23, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

getalife

The (what’s the word, “wanker”? “getalife wannabee?”) must be a budding politician. Avoid the issues and talk about the other person. Yup, he has a career in politics. And you have a fan.

By Midori

July 23, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

Getalife: asking Andy not to namejack is like asking the sun not to rise.

That crap lost it’s shelf life months ago, yet when the going gets tough that’s the first weapon he pulls out of his arsenal.

Well, that’s the only weapon in his arsenal.

Two words that do not go together: originality + conservatives.

By getalife

July 23, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

Stop wanking PF.

By getalife

July 23, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

Paul,

That wasn’t the wanker that time. It was really me. NBC caught me at the wrong place at the wrong time. She said she was 19, but the transcript from our chatlog showed 12.

By getalife

July 23, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I posted PF and @@ were having a last idiot standing contest and he needed new material so I may have upset our resident comic.

By getalife

July 23, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Midori,

Yes Andy started that mess.

I think you were the first victim and then started posting Kos.

He is the reason for the rules here.

By getalife

July 23, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

Underaged girls may be my preference, but that doesn’t give anyone the right to wank me.

Geez.

By getalife

July 23, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Geez.

By Paul

July 23, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

I don’t have a scorecard to keep this straight -

I’ll check in before the debate -

By Tom

July 23, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

Getalife: Take it off your mind, pal. Those “to catch a preditor” folks are getting too carried away. Stupid cops acting like clowns wherever the location. Screaming, running, pointing guns, throwing guys to the ground. No self-respecting cop would allow himself to be photographed in that childish garbage. Think maybe Chris has some personal hangups in that field. Any rate, come on in, have a cookie - I just baked em. Glass of cold lemonade too. Did you bring the condoms, or is that Dustmite’s full-time job? I’ll get the hot tub running.

By getalife

July 23, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

Back to the topic:

“Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and the Senate Judiciary Committee will get another crack at Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as he appears to testify on Tuesday. Leahy last week sent Gonzales a sneak peak at some of the questions he intends to ask to get “clarification” on some of Gonzales’s hazy recollections of what went down in the political firings of eight federal prosecutors.

The word I get is that Leahy will at first stick with questions easy for Gonzales to be truthful about, such as “what day of the week follows Tuesday?”

Should be fun to watch.

By getalife

July 23, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Good deal. In the meantime, I just saw this cute girl come out of the toy store across the street so I’ll check you later.

By raisedanidiot

July 23, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

ITN - super post at 11:07…I wanted to stand up and cheer!

I think best way to deal with Andy is to put him on ignore.

By getalife

July 23, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

Tom,

I’ve never been with a guy before, but I’m willing to try something new. You do sound a bit old for me though. My age range is typically 11-14.

By getalife †

July 23, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this

For the record, all posts about sex are not mine.

“Bush’s approval rating has dropped so low
the only thing he’s above now is the law.”
— Jay Leno

By IN THE NEWS

July 23, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this

I’LL TELL THE TALE AGAIN AND AGAIN

A WHILE BACK SOMEBODY WAS USING MY NAME AND LINKING TO PORN

I CONTACTED AJC AND WAS TOLD THEY WOULD BAN WHOEVER WAS DOING IT.

THE WEBSITE WAS SCRUBBED OF THE OFFENSIVE MATERIAL.

A BUNCH OF TROLLS DISAPPEARED FOR A WHILE - THEN SLOWY CAME BACK. LUCKODULL BECAME DUH.

EVEN THEY CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET A NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS>>>>

I SUSPECT THE MELT DOWN, GO AWAY AND REAPPEAR CYCLE HAS HAPPENED A NUMBER OF TIMES>

JUST KEEP THE PRESSURE ON

By Chris Hansen

July 23, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Thanks for the confession. Now we’ll just add that to our ongoing investigation and submit it to the Georgia Bureau of Investigations. Thanks idiot.

By getalife

July 23, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

Chris,

What are you talking about? I haven’t confessed to any crime. I made a reference to my personal preference for those between the ages of 11-14, but I didn’t use names or admit to any particular action. You have nothing on me.

Geez.

By Luckovichisaheadcase

July 23, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

Today’s cartoon is really just too laughably hypocritical. You sychophants and head cases just tossed it aside when Slick Willie and the Internet Boy just completely disreguarded all campaign finance laws, perjured themselves and repeatedly lied to the American people, using lame excuse after lame excuse to justify their ILLEGAL actions. Our do-nothing Congress is investigating everything in the Bush administration and finding NOTHING. Scooter Libby was railroaded when the prosecutor new there wasn’t even an underlying case. Imagine the outcry if that had happened during Slick Willie’s tenure.

Fred in ‘08

By getalife †

July 23, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

Um wanker, you forgot something.

By getalife †

July 23, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

Um, Fred is lazy and an abortion lobbyist.

By wanker

July 23, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

What?

By Such Silliness makes Poster look STUPID

July 23, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

Today’s cartoon is really just too laughably hypocritical. You sychophants and head cases just tossed it aside when Slick Willie and the Internet Boy just completely disreguarded all campaign finance laws, perjured themselves and repeatedly lied to the American people, using lame excuse after lame excuse to justify their ILLEGAL actions. Our do-nothing Congress is investigating everything in the Bush administration and finding NOTHING. Scooter Libby was railroaded when the prosecutor new there wasn’t even an underlying case. Imagine the outcry if that had happened during Slick Willie’s tenure.

REALLY REALLY STUPID

By getalife †

July 23, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

This is a major red flag

This is scaring many people.

What do you think they are hiding this time?

Looks like the Dems are pressuring Pakistan to go after the real enemy.

By bon scott

July 23, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

By Paul - July 23, 2007 10:41 AM - Too bad you got banned. I saw the same thing when that Dem strategist who had her mic cut on BOR posted her side on her website. Someone wrote in and said “just answer the question first like the Code Pink person” and the response was “this is a Democratic web site - get out of here with your opinions.”

Isn’t Kos the site that banned Cindy Sheehan? Amazing how the political activists are the ones who want to ban free speech.

Paul, you are an ignorant twit. Declining to publish thoughts from someone who wrote to a website or newspaper is not “banning free speech”. The private owners of public sites have the right to “ban” anything they want. This blog, the AJC, the NYT, or the WSJ are not violating the law or the Constitution by refusing to publish letters or posts FOR ANY REASON. Maybe it’s lousy, or it doesn’t fit their political agenda, or they got up on the wrong side of the bed. Whatever. IT’S THEIR RIGHT.

You are perfectly free (and in fact, I encourage you) to print a paper or start a blog that reflects your views by (among other things) not printing or posting items that are contrary to your opinions.

Now, a LAW imposing a blanket ban on ALL media against the promulgation of certain ideas would certainly be a violation of Free Speech guarantees. But that would take government action, and I don’t think the Daily Kos or the AJC have that power.

So a blog or newspaper that edits is not “banning” anything. You are perfectly capable of legally spreading your political ideas someplace else.

The sooner you wingnuts grasp that concept, the better we’ll all be for it.

By Midori

July 23, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

that 1:45 again illustrates the overwhelming stupidity, cluelessness, and crippling hypocrisy that infests the right.

their “views” are just about as relevant as the wadded up gum stuck to the bottom of my shoe.

By luckovichisaheadcase

July 23, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this

It has just come to my attention that Hugo Chavez wants to ban all foreigners who disagree with him. He has already instituted his own version of Diane Feinstein’s wet dream - the “fairness doctrine”.

Bon Scott - where you have it wrong is that you liberals don’t grasp the concept that you hate censorship of your own views but love it when it is done to others.

You also don’t get the fact that editing is censorship, and perfectly legal. It’s just that the AJC and KOS are a bunch of hypocrites about it.

By Talk about a head case

July 23, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this

What a moron.

Oh, same old moron.

By luckovichisaheadcase

July 23, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

Midori - you just counter arguments with nasty put-downs, never facts. You are a shining example of the liberal intellect!

By IN THE NEWS

July 23, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this

Brooks Admits He Picked Facts ‘Out Of The Air’ To Defend Bush’s Iraq Policy

By Analchord

July 23, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this

And just how much egg will be on Luckovich’s face if all the insurgents come out from the sewers they’re hiding in today with their arms held in the international sign of surrender, shouting, “Dont shoot, gringo’s, we surrender, We dont know what got into us, we dont want to fight, we want to see peace, we want to see growth, we want to see the Paris Hilton Video”!

So maybe you libs should take yourselves down a notch or two….it could happen!!

If the Iraqis and Al Queda surrender today, then Bush will be the king!

You never know what can happen if one of our troops suddenly figures out where to throw the next grenade, one well placed grenade can do miracles, just ask anyone who survived the Hindenberg.

It’s good to be the king!

By @@

July 23, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this

Paul @ 10:13:

(((I’d imagine the ultraleft of the Democratic party will freeze him out over this.)))

Paul…Paul…Paul. They would deny it with their dying breath, but the ultraleft wants to be able to “pick their wars” kinda like those in Congress keep “picking their noses in bed” on the Iraq withdrawal.

Getalife:

(((That is a good question.

@@, Paul or duh may answer because I would like to know why people would vote gop at this point in time?)))

Here’s my answer…

Cause all you leftists have shown me are your “boogers”.

BTW Paul, until my daughter returns and I’m able to renew my Stratfor subscription I’ve desperately been hunting for a comparable analysis site.

I stumbled across an article the other day that took into account many various countries and how they go about pursuing their prevailing interests.

Tiny little insignificant countries vying for the attention of the big dogs. Quite a few of them still see the U.S. as the “best of breed” in guard dogs.

The majority of Wall Street’s economists are predicting a severe negative impact on the global economy if we withdraw from Iraq. We’ll all be impoverished and then those in Darfur will just have to die to make room for….?

I’m back to canning tomatoes from the garden. I’m giving them away by the bushel, and still I have too many. I’m even tossing some into the woods.

Squirrels love ‘em.

By Right-wing nut job in full glory

July 23, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this

Such Silliness makes Poster look STUPID says: “Imagine the outcry if that had happened during Slick Willie’s tenure.”

You are absolutely right. The libs get away with everything and the Republicans are constantly railroaded. I mean the Republican Congress and the Right Wing didn’t invest anytime in investigatiing Clinton. I mean you had to look hard to find anything about White Water, travel office scandal, alleged investment scandals, allegations of murder, allegations of drug dealing, allegations of using the military (against Bin Laden) to take the focus off of Lewinsky. I mean the GOP and the press were completely hands off and focused on business until Clinton got oral sex. And thats where a Republican has to draw the line.

So yes, you are in a great position to call people stupid. We both know that if Clinton had:

1) led us into a war based on facts that didn’t turn out to be true

2) predicated our military success on a foreign nations’ political progress.

3) fired generals who disagreed with him

4) leaked CIA agents’ names

5) looked in the camera and said that “he would fire all the leakers” and then did nothing

6) handled Katrina in the same way as Bush etc., etc…

the GOP and the press wouldn’t have liften a finger. I mean again its only after oral sex, a far greater offense than any listed above that got the GOP to impeach a twice elected President. So yes you are right. There is such an obvious double standard and somebody, you know who, is really stupid.

RWNJIFG

By Got your Head Case right Here

July 23, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

I’m a shining example of the neo con itellect

OOps, Neo con’s have no intellect

Lemmings have no brains

By Source Please

July 23, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

“The majority of Wall Street’s economists are predicting a severe negative impact on the global economy if we withdraw from Iraq. We’ll all be impoverished and then those in Darfur will just have to die to make room for….?”

Find this a little hard to believe since Wall St. tilting toward Dems

By Analchord

July 23, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

What if the Iraqis do surrender? Then what? Who would they surrender to? What would it mean if the iraqis surrender.

What would it mean for us to win the war there? See the problem if we talk about a surrender or victory?

Post war occupation? DO you realize what a big problem that would be? Then we’d have to babysit the post-war recovery and rebuilding.

It’s much easier having a war. Rush would brow beat the Iraqis into fighting again by calling them surrender monkeys.

The situ in Iraq is so impossible that even I dont know what’s going to happen next, only that it’s probably going to hurt.

By Bandy D@@stRWS

July 23, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

It seems I can pick my friends and my nose, but it’s more fun to pick the enemys nose.

I DO do the pick and roll.

By rushncap

July 23, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

Getalife: serves you right for trying to ask @@ a serious question. What were you expecting…. a well thought out answer? Something intelligent or intelligible? Hell, even Jesus warned about casting pearls before swine.

By Midori

July 23, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this

2:36 - yes, I am. thank you very much.

too bad I can’t rub off on you.

By Right-wing nut job in full glory

July 23, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

STUPID: These were the ONLY “scandals” the GOP congress investigated in th eclinton years there were only 55 (ican only fit the first 20) and while no wrongdoing was uncovered, it only cost 17 million to do the investigating:

Commodity transactions by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton

Alleged access to White House (Lincoln Bedroom, etc.) in exchange for contributions to the DNC

STUPID it is so great to have people like you on my side, because you know the facts and you tell the truth about them. Its because there are smart people like you that we ended up ina great war like Iraq.

RWNJIFG

By Right-wing nut job in full glory

July 23, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

A few more for STUPID: 21. Clinton Administration’s appointment of Charlie Trie to a special Commerce trade commission allegedly in return for campaign contributions 22. Justice Department failure to appoint an independent counsel to investigate alleged fundraising calls from the White House 23. Alleged quid pro quo—refusal by Interior Secretary Babbitt to grant a gaming permit to the Hudson Casino and Dog Track because of campaign contributions from opposing parties 24. Designation of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, allegedly in part to benefit a Texas mining company connected with James Riady which did not want mining competition in Utah 25. Alleged failure of FEC to prosecute fundraiser Howard Glicken, because of ties to Vice President Gore 26. Fundraising practices of state Democratic parties 27. Alleged use of White House databases for political purposes 28. Irregularities in the Teamsters 1996 elections 29. Alleged lack of compliance with subpoenas issued to White House, including failure to produce videotapes of White House coffees 30. Alleged acceptance by Webb Hubbell of White House-arranged ‘hush money’ 31. Alleged White House obstruction surrounding allegations regarding Monica Lewinsky and her relationship with President Clinton 32. Alleged voter fraud in the Dornan-Sanchez election contest in California’s 46th district 33. Alleged foreign influence on U.S. elections and access to U.S. intelligence 34. U.S. technology transfers to China, including allegations that political contributions influenced the Clinton Administration’s export policy 35. Alleged link between Clinton Administration’s trade policies and political contributions, including but not limited to alleged illegal contributions from Indonesian and Chinese sources 36. U.S. technology transfers to China, including allegations that political contributions influenced the Clinton Administration’s export policy 37. Clinton Administration enforcement action against the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas 38. Allegations that the Clinton Administration improperly influenced career prosecutors at the Justice Dept. to settle a civil racketeering lawsuit involving the Laborers’ International Union 39. Justice Department failure to appoint an independence counsel to investigate alleged fundraising calls from the White House 40. Justice Department oversight/preparation for impeachment proceedings.

RWNJIFG