Mike Luckovich

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 8:04 AM | Link to this

Alright, this one is funny, especially Hickabee’s eyes.

I didn’t think you had it in you cartoon boy.

~~~~~

{{{{Rejecting a personal entreaty from President Bill KKKlinton, Sen. Swimmer M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president in a joint appearance on Monday, Democratic sources said.}}}}

{{{{During his two terms in the White House, President KKKlinton made repeated overtures to the Kennedy family. So the senator’s rejection of his wife is at least as embarrassing as her 28-point loss in the South Carolina primary on Saturday.}}}}

Bwa.

~~~~~

{{{{Sen. Barack Obama may score big with Republican and independent voters in states such as California and Missouri, which allow voters from any party to choose a candidate on the Democratic ballot.}}}}

California is an open primary?

And all we have left to choose from our pinkos?

Ahahahaha.

~~~~~

{{{{The alleged problem is a recession. From the sounds of panic, you would assume we are already in a deep downturn. In fact, that does not appear to be the case, and many economists doubt we will have a recession (defined as two consecutive quarters in which total economic activity declines) at all.}}}}

{{{{The Congressional Budget Office, for example, predicts the economy will grow by 1.7 percent this year. A couple of weeks ago, The Wall Street Journal surveyed 54 economic forecasters, who on average put the chance of a recession at 42 percent and expected growth to approach 2 percent in the first half of this year.}}}}

$$$$Steven Wieting, an economist at Citigroup, predicts growth of 1.2 percent. But like our elected officials, he sees no point in getting hung up on technicalities. “Academic definitions aside, we’ll call that a recession,” he writes in a new report. We can call it a recession or we can call it a wirehair terrier, but that won’t change what it actually is: an expansion, albeit a modest one.-Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune$$$$

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this

Bill Klinton: ‘Screw It, I’m Running For President’

~~~~~

{{{{The latest example being the KKKlintons sudden, sociopathic emphasis on the importance of the Florida primary, a contest all three candidates had agreed to eschew at the behest of the Democatic National Committee.}}}}

~~~~~

{{{{Ed Morrissey —perhaps the most widely liked and respected center-right blogger— endorses Romney. A very interesting read because I suspect Ed’s analysis and decision is being replicated among Republicans across the country who are now obliged to get down off the fence and vote.}}}}

{{{{Republicans should also be watching to see if Teddy endorses Senator Obama, a potentially stunning development that, if it goes from strong rumor to fact, may shake up the Democratic race from top to bottom. If that comes to pass the GOP will have to understand that sending an aging John McCain and a divided base to do battle with a brand new, post-partisan Obama would probably lead to a far worse result than the ‘96 blowout which featured another GOP Beltway insider and war hero. The idea of three debates between Senators McCain and Obama is not a hopeful one for conservatives ho understand the stakes for the country.}}}}

~~~~~

{{{{Insensitivity was reflected in a recent issue of the New Yorker, when KKKlinton’s veteran Latino political operative Sergio Bendixen was quoted as saying, “The Hispanic voter — and I want to say this very carefully — has not shown a lot of willingness to support black candidates.”}}}}

{{{{That brief quote from an obscure politician has generated shock and awe in Democratic circles. It comes close to validating the concern that the Clinton campaign is not only relying on a brown firewall built on an anti-black base, but is reinforcing it. A prominent Democrat who has not picked a candidate this year told me, “In any campaign I have been involved in, Bendixen would have been gone.”}}}}

Bwa.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 322

Counting above at 8:04 make that eleven.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this

BREAKING: Hillary Clinton To Vote “No” On Cloture Tomorrow UPDATE: Barack Obama Will Be There Too

Good News!

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 8:09 AM | Link to this

Bill Klinton: ‘Screw It, I’m Running For President’

~~~~~

{{{{The latest example being the KKKlintons sudden, sociopathic emphasis on the importance of the Florida primary, a contest all three candidates had agreed to eschew at the behest of the Democatic National Committee.}}}}

~~~~~

{{{{Ed Morrissey —perhaps the most widely liked and respected center-right blogger— endorses Romney. A very interesting read because I suspect Ed’s analysis and decision is being replicated among Republicans across the country who are now obliged to get down off the fence and vote.}}}}

{{{{Republicans should also be watching to see if Teddy endorses Senator Obama, a potentially stunning development that, if it goes from strong rumor to fact, may shake up the Democratic race from top to bottom. If that comes to pass the GOP will have to understand that sending an aging John McCain and a divided base to do battle with a brand new, post-partisan Obama would probably lead to a far worse result than the ‘96 blowout which featured another GOP Beltway insider and war hero. The idea of three debates between Senators McCain and Obama is not a hopeful one for conservatives ho understand the stakes for the country.}}}}

~~~~~

{{{{Insensitivity was reflected in a recent issue of the New Yorker, when KKKlinton’s veteran Latino political operative Sergio Bendixen was quoted as saying, “The Hispanic voter — and I want to say this very carefully — has not shown a lot of willingness to support black candidates.”}}}}

{{{{That brief quote from an obscure politician has generated shock and awe in Democratic circles. It comes close to validating the concern that the Clinton campaign is not only relying on a brown firewall built on an anti-black base, but is reinforcing it. A prominent Democrat who has not picked a candidate this year told me, “In any campaign I have been involved in, Bendixen would have been gone.”}}}}

Bwa.

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 8:09 AM | Link to this

{{{{For years Republicans have not had the backbone to fight the claims of racism made by the leftists in America. Conservatives didn’t want to be called racist. So when Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor of the Atlanta Urinal and Constitution, wrote recent columns about the “R” in Republican stands for racism, there was a stunning silence.}}}}

Never mind that it was Democrats that wanted to keep slavery, Democrats that passed Jim Crow laws, Democrats that couldn’t be counted on to pass Civil Rights legislation and Democrat Bill Klinton, the “First Black President,” who appointed almost no black people to positions of responsibility in his administration. Klinton talks about his office in Harlem and all he’s done for black folks but his record is thin.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 8:10 AM | Link to this

During Gov. Romney’s speech, one of his handlers mentioned to one of our staff people that any time Gov. Romney needed to wrap things up, he would be happy to let Gov. Romney know through the ear-piece that he wore.

Check out the source.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this

GOPers Debate (Nicely) in Florida; Here Are the Whoppers of the Night

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 8:19 AM | Link to this

Last time it was scary speed-boats, this time it’s a bogus link to a bombing in Argentina — one by one, Iran hawks’ lies keep unraveling.](http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/74331/)

By Mike

January 28, 2008 8:22 AM | Link to this

At least the GOP isn’t in the middle of a race war.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this

The Real State of the Union

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this

For Mike

It probably was inevitable that, with Sen. Barack Obama as a leading contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, race was somehow going to surface during the hard-fought primaries. That’s what happened earlier this month and PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer covered it, as did every other major news organization in the country….. But in the case of the “race issue” between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I believe the political reporters and others are energetically widening a very slight rhetorical gap between the candidates. One result of this has been to force various civil rights leaders, who have previously announced support of either candidate (or neither), to be on one side of the artificial divide. This was only too apparent in the PBS NewsHour segment today (1/14) on “Politics and Race” featuring two very honorable black leaders, Rep. John Lewis and Rev. Joseph Lowery, forced by a story with inflammatory elements into a very silly argument. Which is to say, PBS helped generate more smoke from no real fire.

Republicans are making noises like the Democrats are involved in a race war. What else can they do - they are unable to come together behind any of their candidates.

If you can’t support your own candidates it appears all you can do is attack the others.

Mike, now, if you have the stones, who DO you support and why?

Or is throwing $hitballs all you are intellectually able to do?

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this

{{{{By IN THE NEWS January 28, 2008 8:37 AM Mike, now, if you have the stones, who DO you support and why? Or is throwing $hitballs all you are intellectually able to do?}}}}

Geez, look at the race haters losing it this morning.

I guess the pressures getting to you, eh?

KKKlintoon is destroying the democrat party and her only chance at the presidency and now this punk thinks it is a “vast right wing conspiracy.”

What a moron paranoid mouth breather.

It’s your own hate that is ruining you.

Because you can’t control it.

Bwa.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this

DUH

You waste your time. You are the bigot. You are the hater. You are to be pitied.

You are to be kept away from our children.

You also are unable to back a GOP candidate at the moment.

Spend your days tossing $hitballs, DUH, the stink is all over you.

You have been and continue to be a ridiculous creature.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this

DUH,

Are you Mike too?

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this

Huckabee’s eyes in this carton remind me of the imbred people from the movie “Deliverance.”

Scary stuff!

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 28, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this

I suspect if Hillary’s last name wasn’t Clinton and she had external rather than internal gonads, the GOP would love her!

By rushncap

January 28, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this

That’s true, Mike. When your party’s lily-white, the best you can hope for is a “farmer tan war”.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this

Bush And The GOP Place Telecoms Above The Security Of The Nation

By RW-(the original)

January 28, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this

ITFS wants you to check out the source for his spam at 8:10.

By all means check out his source

Idiot!

Later!

By getalife

January 28, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

I find it very entertaining supporting the Clintons on progressive blogs.

Check it out, they have united with the RW and corporate media to attack the Clintons.

Is that the unity Obama is talking about? Well, w spewed the same unity crap and he divided and took the easy corporate way out.

I think Obama will do the same and these progressives are getting punked like cons with w.

By Chip Shirley

January 28, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

McCain is McMean

Mitt Romney’s oldest son is named Tagg?

Don’ Giuliani is a mafioso.

Huckabee Wins Every Debate.

HUCKABEE FOR PRESIDENT! mikehuckabee.com

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

Duh,

Are you RW too?

By Chip Shirley

January 28, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

McCain is McMean

Mitt Romney’s oldest son is named Tagg?

Don’ Giuliani is a mafioso.

Huckabee Wins Every Debate.

HUCKABEE FOR PRESIDENT! mikehuckabee.com

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

New Personality splits off?

Chip Shirley another double poster.

Old con.

By Paul

January 28, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

I think one of the more momentous stories of the weekend was the 60 Minutes interview with FBI agent George Piro, who spent months gaining information from Saddam. What appears to be a transcript of the 60 Minutes piece is here:

Link: Interrogator Shares Saddam’s Confessions

Freely plagiarizing from several sources, the interview revealed

he didn’t anticipate that the United States would invade Iraq over WMD, thought it would be another 4-day aerial campaign like Clinton’s, which he’d just ride out.

Hussein had the ability to restart the weapons program and professed to wanting to do that, Piro said.

“He wanted to pursue all of WMD … to reconstitute his entire WMD program”

So much for the “Bush Lied” mantra. I wonder what our political climate would have been if, instead of seeking to shuck off any responsibility, Dem leadership began a “we were all duped” campaign and then engaged the administration on specifics.

BTW - I checked one of the leftwing sites - democratic underground - and their emphasis was solely “Saddam didn’t trust fanatics like bin Laden.” True to ideological form, there.

A question: if Iraq’s leader faked WMDs to prevent an Iranian invasion, what is keeping Iranian leaders from following through, as they know Iraq doesn’t have that capability?

Later, all -

By rushncap

January 28, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

Paul — your “logic” is amazing. Saddam “wanted to get WMDs”? Wow, I can name several dozen dictators who “want” to do the same thing. Should we invade those dozens of countries one after another, or simultaneously?

BTW, Paul, if Saddam had some WMDs, how’s that a threat to America?

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

Paul says:

“So much for the “Bush Lied” mantra”

And just how many WMD’s have we discovered since 2003?

By Political Foreskin

January 28, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

Paul, we knew all of this in 2003. No new info at all, except that americans are ignorant rubes with attention spans of 4 seconds, which you keep painfully remind us all of.

just kidding, you rock. Cheney classified any proof of the wmd lie, or he shredded it, or it’s in his man sized safe. We could use a man sized vice president, instead of the rat we got, knowwhatImean?

By luckovichisaheadcase

January 28, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

Yes Hitlery is a polarizing figure, and that seems to go double for Demoncrats. It is quite ironic that the royal family of Democrat politics has decided to back Obama over the return of Juan and Evita (or George and Lurleen). These are mean people. Although I do not agree with Obama on any issue of consequence in this election, he is much better as a person than the Clintons could ever be.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

I’m always interested in reading Paul’s opinion of what “ideological form” DU takes.

Is there anybody more in tune with the left wing than Paul?

By Paul

January 28, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

rushncap,

Did you read all six pages of the transcript?

UN destroyed most of Iraq’s WMDs in the 90s. Those they didn’t, Iraq did unilaterally. After the pressure was off, Saddam intended to reconstitute his entire program - chem, bio, nuke.

Issue is he waged a successful deception campaign, snookered us. And Iran. As I’ve said, I think Dem leadership began the “Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq but he lied to us because he wanted war” as a means, largely, to separate themselves from any responsibility, once the war began going badly. It was a political calculation, not one based upon the reality of why the US, western (even Iranian) intelligence agencies thought he still had them.

Speculation, here, but if there had been no war, sanctions ended, UN gave clean bill of health - he would likely have began chem and bio production. Would that have been a problem? Well, just go back to the 90s and early 00s and read comments from leaders of both parties as to why the thought of a WMD-capable Iraq was as danger. And please don’t ask me to justify the Democratic leadership’s statements. Or the Republicans, either.

W stands for worst:

See above.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

The only other person as in tune with the left wing as Paul would be luckovichisaheadcase.

Do you think it supports a GOP candidate or is nothing more than another $hit pitcher?

Duh,

Are you luckovichisaheadcase too?

By Paul

January 28, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

ITN

Just saying the sole reference I saw was to buttress the argument Saddam wasn’t in operational planning with al Qaeda (true, in my opinion). But nothing on the other issues or their implications.

So it’s ideological, as new information is disregarded or bent to fit a viewpoint. Both sides do it.

The fact Saddam was wary of al Qaeda just demonstrates Saddam was familiar with their objectives. Which included the end of his regime.

PoliFore

:-)

By rushncap

January 28, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

Paul — I’m still straining to see your point. So because maybe, possibly, at some future date Saddam might would have tried to reconstitute a WMD program that might, somehow in some indirect way be a hindrance to the U.S. we should have invaded at the cost of thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousand of Iraqi lives and trillions of U.S. dollars? That’s like saying that a guy on the street gave me the evil eye, so I went to his house, raped his wife, hacked up his children, hooked his cajones up to a car battery and then decapitated him. Hey, he MIGHT have eventually kicked my dog!

By getalife

January 28, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

Saddam punked them about WMD’s to scare Iran from invading. He did not think w was stupid enough to occupy his country.

The FBI interrogations have come to this conclusion.

By Goldie

January 28, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

WOO-HOO! OBAMA ‘08!

By Paul

January 28, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

rushncap,

Let me rephrase. My point was not the justification for war - and I’ve said in the past, I believe there were several factors at play.

My point was that after the war began going badly Dem leadership saw an opportunity so shift sole blame onto the Bush Administration and to say to their constituents “he LIED to us. He absolutely, positively knew one thing and said another. There was no room for disagreement, no differences of opinion. He LIED to us. So it isn’t our fault we went along with the case for war. Just disregard anything we said during the time.”

A bit heavy, there, but I’m trying to emphasize how, looking back, I see the tactics.

So now come the FBI interviews wherein Saddam said he maintained the fiction he had WMDs. Right up to the start of the war, which he didn’t think would happen.

So his effort at strategic deception of the US was successful. Our intel agencies, Administration and Congress were all fooled. Whether or not WMDs was a justification for war is a separate issue, which was not the point of the post.

We miscalculated. He miscalculated (he knew the stated rationale was WMD, he knew that was a false premise but did not reveal it because of machismo, fear of Iran and the thought a Bush response would be along the lines of the previous administration’s response). And that’s how many wars begin.

Being fooled is lot different than lying.

By Goldie

January 28, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

Also, Paul— you forgot to mention that the FBI agent on “60 Minutes” last night stated that Saddam told him that our weapons inspectors had destroyed any remaining WMDs back in the 90’s… too bad that Dubya would not let the inspectors finish their jobs in ‘03, but instead told ‘em that they had to get out because he was invading regardless of THE FACTS they were telling him!!!

Can’t wait for those criminal Repugs to get dumped from the White House in ‘09!

By Paul

January 28, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

Goldie 10:51

I heard that “WOO-HOO” when I went out to collect my paper at 5. It echoed across the atmosphere -

By Goldie

January 28, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

{{Issue is he waged a successful deception campaign, snookered us. And Iran.}}

Paul @ 20:32 — no, he didn’t “snooker” us… there was plenty of intel stating that Saddam was bluffing, but Dubya pushed those reports aside. He decided that he was invading REGARDLESS of what the on-field inspectors’ reports revealed!

Face it, Paul — you’ve supported a corrupt regime in the White House for their war-mongering ways and you keep trying to make excuses for what they did!

By Copyleft

January 28, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

Paul: The problem is, that wasn’t the lie. “Saddam is seeking/already has WMDs” was a deliberate exaggeration and overreaction to his posturing, of course…

But the LIE was the multiple attempts to connect Saddam to 9/11, to pretend that Iraq was somehow related to Al Qaeda. This, the administration knew to be false… but they kept repeating that claim, week after week, falling silent when asked to provide any evidence for such a connection, only to trot the lie out again the following week.

It was an obvious shell game, and it went on for months. That was, in fact, a lie. Deliberately exaggerating the threat Saddam posed may be viewed as deceptive or just paranoid… but trying to tie him to 9/11 was a deliberate lie.

By Paul

January 28, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

Goldie 10:56

I think I mentioned in my first post that the UN destroyed the bulk of the WMDs in the 90s and what they didn’t, he did.

Interesting, though - even his generals thought they had WMDs. Debriefs showed that’s why they issued chem gear to the troops around Baghdad - and when they found there were no chem stores to load, no one wanted to tell Saddam they didn’t have any!

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

“Being fooled is lot different than lying. “

No doubt!

Neither is real attractive in a President.

Again, it is entertaining to read Paul’s theories on Democrats.

By w00t

January 28, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

60 minutes was really good last night. It’s what we’ve been saying for years as it is. It’s so funny to be proven right yet again. When do we get to send Bush&Co. to prison? Oh yeah, that’s right, he already pardoned himself.

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

So because he says this to an FBI agent he is now somehow credible? Here is all you need to know that bush lied. There were 19 hijackers. None came from Iraq, none had ties to Iraq. So Dubya decided to use the WMD card, you remember all the speeches by his minions about the “Mushroom cloud”. Yet OBL and 13 of the hijackers were Saudi, yet Dubya decides to hold their leaders hand and not mention one word about Democracy when he is in Saudi.. That is the whole Iraq war framed for you right there….

By getalife

January 28, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this

This toon would be accurate if the gop were spewing Go Obama!!!

Obama vs McCain and McCain will win.

Clinton vs McCain and Clinton wins in a landslide.

By Goldie

January 28, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this

Did y’all catch Caroline Kennedy’s op-ed in Sunday’s NY Times?

A President Like My Father

By Paul

January 28, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

Copyleft - Goldie

I don’t think that was a significant rationale.

My impression is that there were several low-to-mid-level contacts. Nothing approaching operational planning. I believe the 9-11 commission bears that out. But even that was pretty ho-hum. I think Bush detractors give far more weigh to it than anyone in the administration did.

In the News

It’s not real attractive in Congressional leaders, either.

Or in State Department careerists.

Or in military general officers.

Or in US intelligence agencies, especially among those for whom this sort of thing is their singular profession.

Lots of groups trooped through the mud. None emerged clean.

By Goldie

January 28, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this

Do Hillary’s supporters think that she and Bill will grow the Dem Party in order to get a majority in November? Who is actually growing the Party with new voters now — with new and excited voters??? Can Hillary do that, and if so, why has she not done it yet???

By Paul

January 28, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

W stands for worst

Let me see if I follow your reasoning:

al Qaeda attacks the US - the Twin Towers.

Seeking to use the attack as a reason to invade Iraq, Bush couldn’t when he found out the contingent was comprised primarily of Saudis. Which is somehow important in a nonstate, ideological entity.y So he made up stories about Iraq having WMDs.

o-kaaayyyyy…..

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

and Paul attempts deflection….

By Paul

January 28, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

In The News

I’d be real interested in your support for the “deflection” comment. Follow the responses to the first post. Read the opposing comments. Note which directly stayed on the points I raised and which went down other paths (hijackers were Saudis) or had a version of “oh yeah? Bush lied because he wanted to invade.”

See when I raised a new issue not in response to a point someone else raised. Heck, I even tried rephrasing when rushncap said he didn’t see the points.

You can even diagram it - Point A, B- Response as R1, R2, direct link back to A, B or off on New Issue 1 (NI1).

I’m really interested.

BTW - no one tackled “A question: if Iraq’s leader faked WMDs to prevent an Iranian invasion, what is keeping Iranian leaders from following through, as they know Iraq doesn’t have that capability?”

By RB from Gwinnett

January 28, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

It’s amazing to read this chain of posts and see Paul make genuine attempts to describe what really happened at the start of this war only to have the loony libs on here continually reply with the “Bush Lied” mantra while completely ignoring the comments and the votes of their own party leadership at the time. You can make all the claims about Bush you want to, but reality is your own damn leadership saw the same intel, made the same conclusions from it, made comments outlining the threat Saddam was, AND VOTED FOR IT!! What about that is so hard for you dimwits to get? How many times do we have to post for you the comments of both Clintons, Kennedy, Kerry and the crew and show you their votes in the matter before you get it through your head they’re as responsible for us being there as anybody?

Talk about being duped? How about all you dimwits who believe this garbage from your party leaders that they didn’t know what they were voting on, didn’t read the intel reports, etc. Are you really that stupid you can’t see through that political opportunist mentality? They’re lying to you sheep. Get a clue.

By getalife

January 28, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

Funny how the Dems admit they were punked by Saddam but the gop just can’t admit it.

Hell, McInsane is running on getting punked.

Hilarious.

By Amazing

January 28, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this

Being educated in GA or GaEducated sure leaves one naive if not outright dumb.

*I find myself being repeatedly drawn away from the “words” of the Republican party and toward those of Mr. Obama. WTF? “WORDS”?

*Unfortunately, I also find myself disappointed with more and more people in government — at all levels — who merely proclaim themselves to be conservative or compassionate (to name but a few descriptors) without actually providing physical evidence.

Please show the physical evidence Obama has provided.

I’ve got a nose for a rose, and this Obama guy stinks like all politicians.

By Paul

January 28, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

getalife 11:14

Some thoughts from a columnist you might find worthy of consideration. May just be a real battle rather than a landslide.

“McCain is, of course, the Republican who, apart from Rudy, would have the best chance to defeat Hillary. She can’t pull the old experience gambit on this long term Senator and his record on everything from global warming to corporate reform to campaign finance to torture to tobacco regulation to immigration reform makes it very hard for Hillary to defeat him. And, because of his appeal to Hispanics left over from his battle for the McCain-Kennedy immigration plan, he is ideally suited to take minority voters, burned by Hillary’s scorched earth policy against Obama, away from the Democrats.”

By w00t

January 28, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

RB, it’s because the so-called intelligence was fixed. The intelligence was made to fit in line with the Bush&Co. policy. The information is out there for everyone to see. It’s the same reason why Germany, France, and Russia, etc didn’t go along with us, because they KNEW that there were no WMD programs in Iraq. You were suckered, we were all suckered, and they’re laughing all the way to the bank.

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

{{{{By IN THE NEWS January 28, 2008 10:00 AM Duh, Are you RW too?}}}}

Spammie: Just because you post to the blog all freaking day long like some loser and sit around attacking other bloggers with all sorts of different names like “Hey Duh,” doesn’t mean everyone else does.

Some of us have a life.

If it wasn’t for the other AJC self appointed blog watch puppy Polly, you would be the only loser in here.

You should be mad at her for stealing your mindless spotlight.

~~~~~

Does anybody else find it funny that Code Pinko practically created Swimmer Kennedy, who without their support would be just another fat drunk living under a bridge, and that they also made up all these politically correct rules for the rest of us, both of which are now biting them in their as-s?

Talk about embarrassing.

And hilarious too!

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Paul,

I think the answer to that question at 11:38 is:

because they know, like always, that they will have the fury of the civilized world to bear if they do.

What purpose would their be to simply go in and invade Iraq? They couldn’t get away with it and they know it.

By getalife

January 28, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

McInsane promised more wars Paul.

He got punked on Iraq and wants to bomb Iran because he got punked.

He is hilarious.

Taking McInsane seriously shows how dumbed downed this country really is.

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this

wOOt,

And others laughing all the way to the bank: military sub-contractors who’ve made a FORTUNE off this war.

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this

But Paul,

I believe that the longer we stay in Iraq, looking like an aggressor, it gives more fuel for sympathy to Iran from others (like Russia).

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I couldnt have said it better, if you remember on Sept 13th, 2001 Rummy was quoted as saying “How can we blame this on Iraq”. That started the wheels turning. If you remember in 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. A month later we declared war on Japan, not some other country with no ties to the attack

By Paul

January 28, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

getalife

I believe McCain said there would be more wars.

Not a politically safe statement, maybe, but seems to me it’s pretty accurate, if history is a guide.

What’s the flip side? Hillary saying there will be no more wars?

Bosch,

Their last set-to was an eight-year war, claimed millions of lives. The obvious point to the question is that now the US provides the deterrence. With a complete US withdrawal, what’s to stop a reprise? Frankly, I don’t think “the world” would do much. Absent US leadership. Same as with Kuwait.

Not saying it’s likely or probable. Just having a bit of fun to see if anyone had a thought on why that particular war has been on hold. Issues are still there.

And for the rest of you, please do not take that as I’m advocating that as a reason for a continued US presence in the region. I’m not. Even given Hillary’s plan for troops in the region.

But I do think there are more subtle ways for Iran to greatly influence Iraqi affairs.

w00t 11:52

Maybe the real reason was because France, Germany and Russia had millions and millions and millions of dollars of trade and contracts with Iraq? In spite of the embargo?

Dirty multinational corporate capitalists. Can’t trust’em.

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

It must be wonderful to be a lib, making things up as you go along in life, problem is, even though it makes you feel good about your wormy little existence, you aren’t fooling anybody but yourself:

{{{{By w00t January 28, 2008 11:52 AM It’s the same reason why Germany, France, and Russia, etc didn’t go along with us, because they KNEW that there were no WMD programs in Iraq.}}}}

Really?

{{{{In late 2002, Saddam still owed the Russians some $10 billion, mainly for illegal arms deals. France came next in the trade rankings.}}}}

Surely you remember “Oil for Food,” where France and Russia took food from the mouths of children in exchange for Saddam’s oil money?

Or are you just a dimwit?

By Paul

January 28, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

W stands for worst

I think I see your point now. The statement you cited for R would be pretty irresponsible. If, however, it was to began preparation for action if Saddam was found to have been the cause - that’s a bit different.

Regarding not declaring war on a country with no ties to the Pearl Harbor attack…

Germany?

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Just got this in an email from John Kerry (we’re buds, you know :-) ) talking about Obama:

“Our bill calls for clear benchmarks, a clear timeline for redeployment and a strategic strike force to combat al Qaeda. Most importantly, this redeployment from Iraq will give our military the personnel and equipment it needs to redouble its efforts at destroying al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. We need Senator Obama’s comprehensive approach to foreign policy and we need to make sure that we are fighting on the right battlefields.

Barack Obama will bring a new approach to foreign policy, one that understands the world as it really is. He will restore our reputation around the globe and end the Bush vision of foreign policy as a political weapon. And when a Republican candidate tells us that we’ll be in Iraq for 100 years, we know that a change in foreign policy can’t wait one more day.”

Yes, this is what I want.

By Truthman

January 28, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this

Just a guess here, Luch-o-less:

You’re not married, are you?

By Georgia 74

January 28, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but here goes, I have never voted for a Republican in my life,59 years, but if I have the strength to pull the lever, McCain will be the first.

By Goldie

January 28, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

When John McCain states that “there will be other wars”, he just ceded the presidency to the next Dem candidate…

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Another thing - what incentive does Iran have to invade Iraq? Regional dominance? Yes, of course, but they would never get away with it. The UN would be on them in a second.

Of course the US is the reason they aren’t invading, like I said earlier, they are getting more world sympathy (which is to their benefit) with us looking the aggressor (not to our benefit).

By Paul

January 28, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

Bosch

Good point on how countries now are often adept at playing events for world sympathy. Is a scenario possible? Sure. Likely? Not for a while, I hope. UN? You have more faith in them then I do. Look at the dithering on Sudan.

Regarding Kerry’s statement, I’m still interested in where we’re going to put all these troops.

Think about this. I’ll bet if it was the plan of a Rep candidate there’d be all kinds of questions about the conditions under which we’d “reinvade” Iraq. Or any other country.

It’s a valid question. I’m just amazed at how questions don’t get asked based upon party affiliation.

By Paul

January 28, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

Bosch

How’s your mother-in-law doing after her heart attack?

Is it open season yet on your effect on women?

By JohnSmithP

January 28, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

A person’s character is shaped and tested by their experiences which is why our next President’s character should matter as much if not more than their experience.

1969 – While Barack Obama was being raised by a single mother and experiencing a life of racial and cultural diversity, Hillary Clinton was learning the art of triangulation and writing an admiring college thesis on Saul Alinsky whose fifth rule of political agitation was, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

1979 – While Barack Obama was actively involved in the South African divestment movement to end apartheid, Hillary was reaping profits of almost 10,000% in the futures markets and leaving taxpayers with her real-estate losses in the Savings & Loan bailout.

1989 – While Barack Obama served as the Harvard Law Review’s first black president in its 104 year history, Hillary Clinton then wife of the Arkansas governor was receiving payments from a law firm that was doing the state’s business and receiving board of director payments from Wal-Mart where she remained silent about Wal-Mart’s anti-labor union practices.

1999 – While Barack Obama was securing bipartisan support for health-care reform and passage of low-income tax credits and child care subsidies in the Illinois legislature, Hillary Clinton was urging her husband to bomb Yugoslavia and supporting his Iraq “regime change” policy in order to divert public attention from the president’s marital, legal and ethical infidelities.

2007 – While Barack was promoting a restoration of balance between work and wealth and criticizing special interests for distorting U.S. tax codes, Hillary and her husband were liquidating their blind trust of the nearly $50 million amassed during their years in public office.

The U.S. needs a uniter not a divider for President as the global economy teeters on the brink of economic meltdown not unlike the Great Depression.

Afterall the Roaring Twenties decade that preceded the Great Depression, like the Irrational Nineties that preceded our current decade, were both a golden age for technology, scandal-plagued politicians, corporate greed, and unrestrained personal debt and speculation.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

DUH?

You have a life? You’re kidding?

I guess you are blogging here on your lunch break. How much hate can you spill in 1/2 hour?

Paul,

Deflection: 11:16, now set to spinning

RB:

the dems saw the same intelligence as the President? Not True!

Georgia 74

If you are going to take a baby step and vote for a liberal, why not go all the way!

By Paul

January 28, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this

In The News 12:47

You’re consistent, I’ll give you that.

Have you thought about embracing Obama’s concept of “change?”

:-)

By Goldie

January 28, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

{{but if I have the strength to pull the lever, McCain will be the first.}}

Sorry to read that Georgia 74 is succumbing to the WAR FIRST Party!

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

Paul:

I have ALWAYS embraced change.

They must often change, who would be constant in happiness or wisdom. ~Confucius

If you would attain to what you are not yet, you must always be displeased by what you are. For where you are pleased with yourself there you have remained. Keep adding, keep walking, keep advancing. ~Saint Augustine

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

Paul,

That is the main ingredient everyone forgets in this whole mess. Cheney, and Rummy left over from Bush I still had i t in for Saddam and used this to go to war with Iraq and trample on the constitution at the same time. I have said on this blog many times, i had never felt so proud to be an American when Dubya had that bullhorn and declared that the people who caused this destruction would soon hear from us. Then to see 6 years later that he didnt care to find those responsible….

By RW-(the original)

January 28, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

I’m just passing through, but I sure am glad I didn’t have anything to drink right before I read this:

{{{{The UN would be on them in a second.}}}}}

Please tell me that was sarcasm and I’ll give you props for a great line, Bosch. If it was serious would you elaborate?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Serious question for you Obama supporters. How do you square the message of change with romping around with Ted Kennedy?

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I think you’re right about party affiliation and questions, but aren’t most of the Republican candidates simply touting Bush’s plan? No timetable? No plan? Just stay the disastrous course?

It’s my opinion that wars are just not tolerated too much these days. That may sound a little simplistic and naive, and most people would reply to that with a big “DUH” but the world is a much smaller place than it was in the 80s (even the hair, thank god) during the Iran/Iraq war and the Afghanistan/Russian war. And, like I’ve said over and over, it is no longer a matter of who has the most guns wins, it’s who can break their enemies’ economy.

The Soviet Union fell apart, and we should take a big lesson from that.

Yes, my mother in law is better, well, still in the hospital, but thanks for asking. It turns out she has a blood clot, which is more dangerous than the heart “episode” she had. They don’t say heart attack anymore, it’s always an “episode.” More tests today to see for sure - it pretty much sucks to have a heart “episode” on Friday - not much gets done over the weekend.

You can tease me if you wish. :-)

Oh, BTW, I saw Sweeny Todd last night. I’m DEFINITELY giving up meat for Lent. That was the most macabre, disturbing movie I’ve ever seen. GREAT MOVIE, very disturbing - Tim Burton makes Edgar Allan Poe look like a Disney animator.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

RW

All I saw was an endorsement.

Didn’t see any romping around.

Are any of the GOP candidates romping around Bush or Cheney asking for an endorsement? How do we square GOP candidates calling for change but too attached to Bush to say why change is needed?

C’mon RW, let’s twist and shout!

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

RW,

Yes, I guess my faith in the UN is a little naive, to say the least, but I’ve elaborated a bit in other posts.

Paul, The situation in Sudan is inexcusable, but I don’t think they would be so laissez faire if it were somewhere in the Middle East.

By getalife

January 28, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

Damn Ted is blowhard.

Give it a rest Ted and let Obama speak.

Geez.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

Hansen: White House ‘Reviews And Edits’ All Testimony By Government Scientists

By RW-(the original)

January 28, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

ITFS,

Try turning on a television,

Later!

By w00t

January 28, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

Oh, it’s so funny that even you crazed neocons want to throw mud in the eyes of the FBI.

You’re still playing the card of “if it doesn’t fit the policy then it must be a lie.”

It’s no different than Bush spiting on our intelligence agencies when he disowned the Iran NIE report.

You can’t decide what evidence gets to be used and when to use it. Everything has to be taken in to account for context, or you get a false sense of the world.

We’re been saying this for almost seven years now, and you can’t even see it when the FBI tells you how it is.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

RW Do you spend much time in front of the TV machine?

Didn’t yo’mama tell you what it would to do your brains?

Do you ever “romp” RW? With the kids? the wife? the dog?

I am SOOOO waiting to see Romney and McCain romp….

By Dubya

January 28, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

The Repunk choice shall be McCain. Another crazed cretin who believes in “winning” in Iraq. Perhaps this fraud will take us on another fraudulent shopping trip in downtown Bagdaddy - or have you already forgotten that scam? Never be surprised at the gross ignorance that is the rancid masses of the Repug party and the excrement they always bring forth. Tonight will be another delivery from Drunken Bush, my favorite reminder of Repug intellectualism. Observe him carefully. The words written for him. His pitiful delivery. The mindless little smirk. His look of bewilderment. His alcoholic body language. Yapping about “9/11” and “War On Terror” and “Fight Them Here At Home,” etc. Always a fun evening in which to examine the Repugs’ very best. Be proud in knowing that the rest of the World watches too. These are our finest moments. God bless Murcuh! Allah Akbar!

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this

State of the Union Drinking Game 2008

By RB from Gwinnett

January 28, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

By w00t 11:52 AM

Woot, I’ve been asking you for weeks who’s been accused or convicted of lying to congress (the sen. intel committee) leading up to Iraq. You keep making these stupid statements about the intel being made up, but that’s a federal offense and you can damn well be sure if they’ll convict Jackie Joyner and send her to jail for 6 months for lying about steriod use, they’d have a field day with some slimy intel guy lying to them leading up to the war. Put up the evidence to support your stupid claims. You’ve been asked repeatedly. Put up or shut up.

ITN, who decides what intel the intel committe sees? Does Bush make that call? I don’t think so. Our government is constructed the way it is to keep things like that from happening. Use your brain for a change and think.

By RB from Gwinnett

January 28, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

By w00t 11:52 AM

Woot, I’ve been asking you for weeks who’s been accused or convicted of lying to congress (the sen. intel committee) leading up to Iraq. You keep making these stupid statements about the intel being made up, but that’s a federal offense and you can damn well be sure if they’ll convict Jackie Joyner and send her to jail for 6 months for lying about steriod use, they’d have a field day with some slimy intel guy lying to them leading up to the war. Put up the evidence to support your stupid claims. You’ve been asked repeatedly. Put up or shut up.

ITN, who decides what intel the intel committe sees? Does Bush make that call? I don’t think so. Our government is constructed the way it is to keep things like that from happening. Use your brain for a change and think.

By rushncap

January 28, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

Paul, here is my take on what happened. This is supported by my general understanding of human nature, politics, and what I’ve read about the whole issue.

Bush wanted to invade Iraq from before he even took office. He just needed an excuse. When 9/11 happened he got the excuse. He (and I mean Cheney et al) knew that Iraq was no threat, but there was enough ambiguity that they were able to present some sort of a shoddy case. I think Democrats knew full well that Iraq was no threat as well, but in the aftermath of 9/11 stating so or even contradicting Bush publicly would be total political suicide. They were not willing to fall on that sword, so they went along with it, in some cases trying to position themselves as supporters (see Hillary), again for political considerations. Are they partially to blame? Sure. But they are not the ones who dreamt up this stupid war and it was Rove etc. who used Bush’s political clout and our national tragedy to back Democrats into a no-win corner. So you can trudge out all the “Democrats said so too” but they are not the ones who pushed the damn thing. Without Shrub and his cabal there would be no war. It’s HIS fault. The Democrats failed to be patriotically heroic, granted, but that’s a long way from sharing the blame.

By Paul

January 28, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

ITN 1:01

Excellent thoughts. Thank you.

W for worst 1:02

That’s one of the more fascinating things. Cheney was quite constrained in dealing with Saddam during Desert Storm - stuck right to the UN mandate. He had the power and position to advocate for a stronger push then, but did not. So I don’t think it was an “unfinished business” thing with him.

I think Pres Bush and company have been pursuing the al Qaeda organization - and other elements of jihadism - successfully, on many levels, worldwide. One of the points that baffles me is how quiet they’ve been on many of these successes. Disruption of financial networks, assistance to other countries - well, I suppose much is still classified. Years ago when I met my very first “Bush Lied” zealot I made what I thought was a mildly soft observation that the Iraq war was (at that time) a sideshow to the war on terror. The person never got it. Just took a the comment as unabashed, full, overthetop support for Bush and the War so I was a righwingapologistneocon… That was pretty fascinating, too.

Bosch,

I’ve not meant many people who could enunciate, specifically, Bush’s plan for Iraq. Because much has been left unsaid. But there are some differences. Heck, I suppose I could say the difference between Hillary’s plan and the “Republican” plan is the Reps would keep troops in-country while Hillary would keep them out of country. I suppose I could say that -

I think those who say the surge failed because the gov’t is dysfunctional missed the point of the surge. Reading through the plan I believe the objective was to reduce the violence to provide an environment for the gov’t to “succeed.” Paraphrasing, there. Because the gov’t is dysfunctional does not mean they did not have the environment for success.

I’ll hazard a guess that the situation will evolve towards what Biden recommended - more of a federation. If the environment continues somewhat stable. So if Hillary wants to keep troops in the region for years, and the Reps do, too, than doesn’t it make sense to keep them where they’ll have the greatest impact? Just wondering out loud.

I’ll pass on Sweeney Todd, thank you.

By @@

January 28, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

This is just too convenient ml.

The Huckabee resemblance!

Huckabee Gored.

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

I guess most on this blog forget Iraq and Iran have been at war since the late 70’s. That is how we got in bed with Sadaam. And after Iran overthrew our embassy and took our people hostage, we gave them arms and never punished them. These and other great foriegn policy disasters brought to you courtesy of the GOP…

By Tonito

January 28, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this

homoDUH. 11:53. “Some of us have a life.” Who would that be? Up all night, waiting to be first to post here daily. Spending the entire day here. Ignorant of all subjects. Wrapped in 4-letter insults and potty talk. Childish crap ozzing constantly. Do tell the world about your “life,” Brokeback Boy.” (The latter just upsets you sooo much, Man of God.)Tellus! Tell us!! About the pathetic wife and unfortunate kids too.