Thinking Right

By Jeff

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

I say less Jack Kerry, more Jack Ryan!!!

By ron

April 5, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

I am already sick of the presidential campaign and we have many months to go.I would like to see every journalist that purports to “know” what is going on banned from the planet.I would start with Tim Russert and then gleefully work my way through Fox news,NBC,ABC.I would single out CBS for special torture because of the name I’ll never speak that sits in the anchor chair.I already know who I’m voting for and unless that person dies or goes completely out of character.Anyone that hasn’t made up their mind at this point scares me.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

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

Hi Jim,

Isn’t all this the fault of Bill/Hillary Clinton and John Kerry? Aren’t the DemoNcrats to blame here?

C’mon Jim. Let’s hear the real truth. The truth from the Right side.

There’s only one government, and that’s the government created for Corporate America on behalf of the Chirstain Right by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

There’s only one way to see things, and that’s the way that Karl and Dick see them.

Those who see things differently are traitors.

Those who support non-Republican causes are commies.

Say it Jim. We want the truth.

By jbmlaw

April 5, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. While I think Jim is correct about the likelihood that voters will be disgusted in 2008, I don’t think that hurts the conservatives.

The American public has a notoriously short attention span. When President Bush told us that the war against terrorists would be a long and difficult one, and that it could reasonably extend beyond his administration, the leftists responded by warning the American public that we would bring home 50,000 young American soldiers in body bags. Then when deposing a soft-on-terrorists dictator proved pretty easy, the leftists became horrified that someone lied about weapons of mass destruction, and assured us it was the President.

Similarly, President Bush was first elected, primarily due to the votes of that 99% of the land mass that excludes New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and other islands of insanity within our borders. The mandate the President received in 2000 was to put the adults back in charge of our policies. Unfortunately the President attempted to conciliate and retained many of the baathists who served in the prior administration. jbmlaw postulate #1: keeping leftists in government jobs, even if nominally qualified, is always a dumb move, e.g., Airhead Plame.

My best guess is that the shenanigans of Pelosi and Reid will similarly wear thin, as the American public grasps the leftists active effort to undermine our improving military prospects of eliminating the world’s Islamists. I forecast Mr. Reid will lose his senate seat in 2008.

By KR

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

It seems as though ambassador positions are indeed for sale to the highest bidder.

If we go with this idea and actually auction off all ambassador positions, we might be able to cover the deficit spending of the White House.

Maybe.

By KR

April 5, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this

It seems as though ambassador positions are indeed for sale to the highest bidder.

If we go with this idea and actually auction off all ambassador positions, we might be able to cover the deficit spending of the White House.

Maybe.

By jbmlaw

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

Fans of Speaker Pelosi will surely wish to read today’s Washington Post, as it offers a detailed qualitative analysis of her recent works. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_pf.html

By Dennis

April 5, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten writes, “President George W. Bush gave Sam Fox a recess appointment as U.S. ambassador to Belgium.”

And Mr. Fox’s ony qualification to be an ambassador is that he gave a “$50,000 donation to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”, which turned out not to be the truth.

I don’t want to be labled as another neocon, so let me admit that the democrats make the same kind of appointments for the same kinds of reasons.

“Bush also gave a recess appointment to Andrew Biggs asdeputy director of Social Security. Biggs, a strong advocate of partially privatizing Social Security….”

Oh, Jesus. Here Wooten goes again on the “privatizing” of social security.

Every intelligent person knows that this is only a scam by neocon Republicans and corporations in order to get risk free, interest free investment money that the corporations can’t get from banks or other lending institutions. If you can’t fleece the banks, then fleece the voters.

As to Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats visiting the Middle East, the White House decries that while sending Republicans.

Yes, “Washington is a broken place right now, dysfunctional in some respects….”

In “some respects”? It has been dysfunctional from day one of this Bush/Cheney administration.

Reading columns like Mr. Wooten’s lets you know that the truth doesn’t matter to a neocon.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By RC

April 5, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this

America has survived schisms in Washington before.

Until the middle or so of the last century we could take pot shots at each other, elect weak governments, even have a civil war in relative isolation and without too much fear of foreign influence or direct intervention.

In today’s world we we face a potential world-wide Islamic uprising of unprecedented proportions, a weak and resentful West, an economically and militarily booming East, and a decaying and increasing gang ruled third-world. Moreover, the “second government” of which Mr. Wooten speaks sees America as the worlds villain and the cause of all its evils.

The world today is smaller. We are easier to reach when distracted or vulnerable.

So while the world is falling apart or lining up against us, the new majority in Congress is writing memos to itself forbidding anyone to use the phrase “global war on terror”. In a different age this might be silly, but today it speaks of stupidity, or worse duplicity with those in the rest of the world who would do us harm.

The next election can’t come too soon. Hopefully Americans will take advantage of it and rectify the mess they created in the last one because we might not get another chance.

By jbmlaw

April 5, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this

Dear Dennis @ 9:18, you have inadvertently swerved into a well-concealed truth, the corollary of your argument “Every intelligent person knows that this [eliminating government control of social security funds] is only a scam by neocon Republicans and corporations in order to get risk free, interest free investment money that the corporations can’t get from banks or other lending institutions. If you can’t fleece the banks, then fleece the voters.” Thus, the status quo: social security is, to paraphrase, a government scam to get risk free, interest free investment money that the government can’t get from banks or other lending institutions, and if you can’t fleece the banks, then fleece the voters.

By Van

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

It seems that the Presidents attempts to work with those on the left side of the aisle has brought him nothing in return.

Since the demon-crat Congress has no intention of working with the President on anything.

With the far left kooks that control the DSA and the demon-crat party want-a-be’s think they can run a parallel government and that will make us respected and strong in the eyes of those that want to do us harm.

I say, let the loony left have its fun, I keep remembering the words from the Declaration of Independence,”That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, …”

By harold

April 5, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this

Harold doesnt really give a shyte who the U.S. ambassador to Belgium is unless he can convince Sunni Perdue to let shop owners (not just restaurant owners) sell the legal products beer and wine on Sundays. Belgium does make some good beers.

So, we’re gonna have two years of dysfunctional government? uh…. what have the last 6 years been?

At the end of dubya’s term we will have had 8 years of dysfunctional government, but at least the final 2 years look like they’ll be far less damaging than the first 6

Any director of Social Security should be a near-retiree from a median income family who will depend on Social Security in his retirement.

Harold bets this Bush appointee to be Social Security director, though, is some rich white guy.

By Mid-South Philosopher

April 5, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim and others,

There are a number of us who have been sick of government since the days of Samuel Adams. Too much government or too little government are equal horrors. However, I would rather deal with the latter than the former.

Clearly the Bush Administration has displayed gross ineptness in a lot of ways.

An incompetent effort to fight the Iraq War on the cheap and an ineffective strategy for the occupation that came after (which Bush and his incompetent secretary of defense, Rumsfeld, never saw coming.

An inability to veto a single spending bill porked by the, then, Republican (or should I say corporatist) controlled Congress.

A total inability to secure the American borders.

A lame effort at dealing with national disasters. To wit: Katrina and Rita (which while not all Georgie’s fault) made him look the fool anyway.

A sell out to the un-American action of the Clinton Administration by embacing the North American Union, which will compromise the sovereignty of the United States.

As for this snot of a Democratic controlled Congress, it is a case of dumb and dumber, or, perhaps, lame and lamer is a better analogy. When I look at our Executive and Legislative branches of the national government, I am reminded of a quote by the late W.C. Fields, in response to the citizens voting to outlaw the selling of whiskey on Election Day. He sais, “This is carrying democracy too far!”

As for me, I have voted for my last incumbent. Never re-elect anyone!

By time for the truth

April 5, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

I’m already pig sick of the shameless fawning and pandering of the party of hate media re: HiTllary who is a worthless arrogant hateful shrill feminazi, just politically leeching off the utterly disgraced name of a perjuring rapist and pardon seller; some half black far left mildly articulate big eared nonenity with not ONE political achievment to its name and a scummy greasy ambulance chasing pinko wanker who couldn’t even win his home state and is now cynically exploiting his wife’s cancer to try to kick start his fast fading campaign!!

Two years of this noxious bollocks whilst enduring yet another smug primary p!ssing match amongst the religious right over who is the most religiously zealous GOPer.

I am eternally grateful that the DEFEATED cowardly, military hating, lying, movie camera in a war zone for future campaigns toting band aid ‘warrior’ with three small scratches despicably turned into purple hearts that NO ONE else in Nam would ever have claimed to get out of combat is not running again. Likewise the DEFEATED AlSore is also happily spending time eating lots of hilariously embittered electoral humble pie and living large, puking up its witless, hysterical lies and distortions about global whining - but mercifully and astutely it is (thus far) not going to risk another GOP hammering!!

As the cut and run gutless liberal scum increasingly sneer at and undermkine the military they run the risk of being seen by ALL non-lefty cowards … i.e. true Americans … as being rabidly anti-American and giving noisy, gleeful aid and comfort to the enemy!!

The American people cheerily flushed the John’s last time …

Will it be ditchthecorruptlyingbitch this time??!!

By time for the truth

April 5, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

mid south philospher

in all seriousness I cannot really meaningfully fault any of your excellent post - although its not really fair to too harshly blame Bush for Katrina problems, the local corrupt (racebaiting) DemoNcrats completely bollocksed it up even before the storm hit which made playing catch up - amongst the devastation and (mostly lefty) finger pointing - infinitely harder.

You were much too generous to the demoNcrat congress but, being intellectually honest (as unerringly I invariably tend to be), about right on the GOP/BUsh admin.

Its both funny (in a queer sense) and very telling how so many folks are so genuinely disillusioned with the self serving political snouts in the trough game, yet so little ever changes both at state and fed level. The endemic corrupt nepotic inertia will doubtless continue to confound any attempt to go much beyond miniscule tinkering.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

April 5, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

jbm @ 9.17.

That’s the liberal media. Can’t trust what they say. That story is not objective. Please disregard.

Refer to Fox News and The Washington Times for all truly valid reporting on this subject.

By time for the truth

April 5, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

At least it looks like for 08 we will be sooner rather than later be spared the vile liberal dribblings and pandering of the arrogant arsewipe McCain.

Yesterday’s man McCain is finally cottoning on - to (slightly) paraphrase the world’s most smug famous leftie veggie - that yesterday all my trouble’s seemed so far away … now I believe in yesterday!!!

By Brian Curtis

April 5, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

So Bush has learned nothing; his policy of favoring loyalty over competence in his job picks continues, no matter how many failures are racked up as a result.

Some folks just can’t learn, it seems.

By Redneck Convert

April 5, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

I just hate the libruls that run congress.

When my President, Mr. Bush, took over, they already set a booby trap for him. Sure, it looked like we had a surplus but they really fixed it so the budget would run short in his 1st year in office. And they kept making it run short the next 6 years. The poor Republicans that took over congress never knowed what hit them. They got the blame but it was the libruls that done all the spending. It ain’t just been in the news yet.

Same thing with the war. The libruls hired the terrists to hit the World Trade Center before the Republicans took over. And they talked that Saddam guy into making big weapons. So we just had to take over Iraq. For our own defense.

Sure, there ain’t no good jobs for most people, but its the libruls fault. They drove the pay up so high that my President Bush had to ship most of the jobs overseas. Or buy from overseas. Or bring in the furriners to do the jobs for lower pay. Or hire illegals to do them for lower pay. Those poor big businesses was going broke.

So now we got the libruls back in congress and making things tough on My President Mr. Bush. Its just awful. This country is going commie. I’m sick of it and can’t wait till we put the rednecks back in charge. Only it don’t look like most of the country will vote for them. Like I say, this country is going commie big time. Just a few people like me and Sister Dusty and jbmlaw and tftt and Van and JohnD see things the way they really is. The libruls done collected twicet as much money as the conservatives in the president race. They are trying to buy the election! Must be a bunch of overseas commies giving all that money. It can’t be that most people in this country don’t like the way My President Mr Bush runs things.

Anyway, remember to send your money to Committee to Elect Redneck Convert for President, c/o Simpsons Trailer Park, Dawsonville, Ga. I’ll do My President Mr. Bush one better. I’ll wait till congress has went home for a while and then do recess appointments for all 500 or so seats. That will take care of the librul commies. I’ll send the jobs to every country in the world. Give the death penalty to everybody that gets arrested. Draft all the illegals into the army and kick butt over there. And big tax cuts for everybody. Except maybe libruls.

By getalife

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

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.

w is a lame duck and can’t be trusted. The military should not allow him to return to the White House.

By Van

April 5, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

getalife

Pelosi has the endorsements of the majority of the radical terrorists. Neville Chamberland could not have done better. What a gal!

By time for the truth

April 5, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

The Super Soaraway Sun Says …

HOSTAGE SHAME

THANK goodness they are free at last.

It is a huge relief to see an end to the Iran captives crisis, which worsened the longer it went on.

But the sight of the illegally-detained British forces thanking Iranian tyrants for their freedom will sicken the nation.

Smirking President Ahmadinejad milked the humiliating moment for all it was worth.

The ratings were paraded in cheap new suits and had to grovel in public for his blessing. Their 13-day ordeal should soon be over.

But nobody emerges from this crisis with credit.

The Royal Navy failed to protect the patrol — or spot boatloads of heavily-armed Republican Guards racing to ambush it.

Britain’s official response was at times uncertain and, in the case of Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, downright embarrassing.

The UN emerged in its true colours — divided and ineffectual.

The real villains are the Iranians who grabbed a non-aggressive British crew acting legally under a UN mandate.

At no time did the British personnel stray out of the area they were supposed to be in.

Yet the mullahs forced terrified mum Faye Turney and her shipmates to “confess” they were in Iranian waters — and to apologise.

Nobody knows the pressures they faced, but the sight of British servicemen — apparently relaxed and unharmed — criticising their own Government was less than edifying.

In the end, Iran got what it wanted. It probed the responses of the civilised world at a moment of international tension.

It found neither Britain nor its allies have the clout or confidence to take on a fanatical regime that today represents the biggest threat to world peace.

Tony Blair insists there have been “no negotiations”.

But who will be surprised if half a dozen Iranian insurgents are quietly set free in a few months time?

Those are questions for later.

Today, let’s be joyful that our people are coming home at last.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

April 5, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

getalife,

I gotta disagree with you on this one. Besides the fact that she’s grandstanding, she is most certainly not the official of record when it comes to US foreign relations.

I think Carter has some points from an academic standpoint, but ultimately this is Bush’s mess and efforts to mitigate it by political rivals won’t hold water.

If the dems were confident in their position, they’d wait until after the elections and then send their secretary of state over there.

As it is, she’s just giving Rush and Hannity a good topic changer to whine about.

By Van

April 5, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

Why has the loopy lefties not been outraged about the British hostages?

Iran has been in gross violation of the Geneva Convention. Both Britain and Iran are signers of the Convention. Why does the left only protest the alleged violation done by the US and not the televised violation by Iran?

It does appear, as getalife so lately cheered, that if our enemies do something they are praised, and if we do something, anything, the lefties loves nothing better than to condemn the US.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

There is only one government and the military should lock up the king. Send the neocons to Iraq for trial.

The troops come home, the Dems work on reversing the damage and the people celebrate a new Independence Day with the troops in the streets.

By Jack

April 5, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

I am so glad the Iranians weren’t stupid enough to take our men. No telling what would have transpired.

Gotta disagree getalife, Pelosi didn’t do squat. As if they respect women over there.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Jim’s a Cherry Picker,

You may want to look into the results of her trip to Syria.

Peace talks with Israel, the release of the Brits after Syria talked to Iran and probably more.

What has Rice accomplished?

Nothing, she did Rice’s job and we must keep talking to all countries surrounding Iraq to try to keep the Iraq civil war from becoming a regional civil war.

If you wait, like you suggest, it would be too late.

By Jeff

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

“Leftists””, “kooks”, “demon-crats”, “liberal scum”, “loony left”, …

These guys don’t hate America. They’re much worse. These “Christians” hate their fellow Americans. We’re not divided because of the differences in political points of view. We’re divided because of the language adopted by tftt, jbmlaw, Van, Dusty and friends.

Van’s 9:26 post is a perfect example. Clearly, if he doesn’t like the results of an election, then he advocates abolishing the government entirely. Van, David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph would get along just fine.

By jm

April 5, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

Van@10:47 - Any rational person would of course be outraged by those British sailors and marines being held hostage in Iran. Unfortunately, thanks to this administration’s loose interpretations of that “quaint” document, the Geneva Convention, we lack the moral highground to criticize.

By getalife

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

lies,

The Iranians showed they did not torture, waterboard, electrocute, attack with dogs, naked pyramids, sexual abuse or beat to death prisoners like Abu Gharib.

I would say the Iranians emerged with credit on not torturing your homies.

We will need a brain to deal with Iran.

By harold

April 5, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

Why does the left only protest the alleged violation done by the US and not the alleged violation by Iran?

That should be rather obvious: We are not represented by Iran. Our confiscated incomes (aka taxes) does not go to Iran.

Another thing that should be obvious by now: Bush wants to keep the military in Iraq so they don’t come back here and oust him.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

3 Republicans Part With Bush on Syria

Lets not cherry pick on Speaker Pelosi.

By Van

April 5, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

jm,

I think you miss the point. The loopy left sees nothing wrong in criticizing the alleged violations with the prisoners at Gitmo. Not withstanding the terrorists are not covered by that “quaint” document. While the Iranian actions are in clear violation and then televised by the Iranians.

With the British hostages, they were in uniform, they do serve a recognized military and government authority and they do not hide behind civilians.

The parading of the hostages, like the episode in 1979, was a clear violation of the Convention and international law. The worse part of the 1979 incident was the violation of US territory, the embassy. Under international law, all embassies, consulates and such structures are considered the territorial property of that nation.

The Iranians show no signs of improving their respect for international law.

So while the lefties agonize over the treatment of our prisoners, they remain silent about the British hostages. Thank God they will be released.

By Curious Observer

April 5, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

If they had any shame, the members of the British government ought to be embarrassed by the cowardly conduct of its captured sailors and marines, who squealed like little pigs on the very first day of capture. I hope the U.S. isn’t counting on Great Britain for much military help, unless it is in providing instructions for surrender. Even France looks brave by comparison.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

Van,

They are released and were not tortured idiot.

Torture is a huge mistake and we have too much work to work on our own democracy, reputation, credibilty and country thanks to your little want to be king.

Do not ignore these facts.

By JohnD(the actual)

April 5, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

getalife,

Pelosi lied to Assad about Israel.

Israel immediately denied her remarks and in so doing made her the fool we already knew her to be. If the military should arrest anyone that person should be Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi had nothing to do with the release of the British hostages, although she will claim as much just as you have.

REGIONAL CIVIL WAR? Iran and Syria are the primary supporters of the terrorists in Iraq and you suggest this war will spill over into those countries?

I have avoided asking this question before but your remarks are so insipid I have to know - Is your real name Ahmed and are you an Islamofacist?

By deegee

April 5, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

Two governments? What about our two presidents?

“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.”

By Brian Curtis

April 5, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Van: “Why does the left only protest the alleged violation done by the US and not the televised violation by Iran?”

You’re not serious, are you? I mean, you can’t have missed the point that we Americans are only responsible for the actions of OUR people, not anyone else’s, have you?

Of course we’re critical of crimes committed by other nations… but we have no say in those. It’s more meaningful to pay attention to what OUR country is doing, and hold OUR leaders accountable for OUR actions. That’s where we can make a difference.

By Van

April 5, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

getalife,

If there was torture, and not humiliation, where are the convictions?

Your baseless allegations are just a reflection of your hatred of you our country - I am ashamed that you are still here.

By rarringt

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

Good morning all,

Van, once again you distort the left’s point of view. Nobody celebrated the taking of hostages. It was a violation of international law, as well as being fundamentally immoral.

What’s happened at Gitmo also may be both illegal and immoral.

Either you don’t really believe that liberals feel that way, in which case you are being an intellectually dishonest provocateur, or you do believe that we actively embrace watching people held at gunpoint, in which case your view is…well, just plain wrong.

When you defend Gitmo, given the activities the government has admitted to (so Lord only knows what’s really happening there), you are essentially defending torture, suspension of habeas corpus, indefinite detention, and denial of due process, all of which as a “patriotic american” you are supposed to be against.

Time to put down the Washington Times and pick up the Constitution, Van. You’ll find it makes for pretty interesting reading (‘specially when you get to the Amendments).

By JoeD

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

Van has never been interested in facts. He has stereotypes in his mind that are unchangeable. Every person who disagrees with him is a loopy leftist who doesn’t have a job, doesn’t pay taxes, hates this country, wants the government to take care of him, and an abomination. Don’t try to confuse him with facts. He’ll call you a pimple on his butt and get all huffy.

By JohnD(the actual)

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

getalife has proclaimed the British hostages were not tortured. Their families and the rest of the world should hear of this educated, informed statement. I am sure all will be relieved to know the truth as asserted by getalife.

Read the reports of the treatment of the hostages in 1979-80 at our embassy in Tehran and then tell us Iran does not torture. And, exactly how many were “beaten to death” in Abu Ghraib?

And getalife has the nerve to refer to others as “idiots”.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Its w playing dirty politics again and the gullible wingnuts swallows, hook, line and sinker:

Did White House Privately Back House GOPers’ Trip To Syria While Bashing Pelosi?

w cries about the Dems playing politics while he engages in Rove’s political bs like the Fox trick.

I guess it is too much to ask you to use your brain.

Geez.

By Van

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

getalife,

If there was torture, and not humiliation, where are the convictions?

Your baseless allegations are just a reflection of your hatred of you our country - I am ashamed that you are still here.

By getalife

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

Yes JohnD,

You are an idiot.

I can back up every post with a link but wingnuts will not read them.

You hate the truth.

It interferes with your party bias.

Look it up moron.

By Captain Freedom

April 5, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

The Captain looks at Our future with sadness…

First, St John McCain goes all Dukakis (not bukakke, though close enough) with his ludicrous march through the marketplace alongside his pal Huckleberry Graham. Never mind the fact that the poor geezer falls asleep in public more often than Shotgun Cheney. Nope, his fundraising results tell the tale. Not even the deep pockets of the GOP will bet on that tired old nag.

Then today, this…

BOSTON — In boasting about his lifelong experience as a hunter, Mitt Romney may have shot himself in the foot.

The Republican presidential contender has told audiences on several occasions, most recently this week in gun-savvy _ and early voting _ New Hampshire, that he has been a longtime hunter. But it turns out he has been on only two hunting trips.

He’s as bad as that other Taxachussets Phony Hunter Kerry. Plus, he’s long been on record as a friend of the Friends of Dorothy. He simply does not hate the sin enough, much less the sinners.

And this….

CNN: So you support taxpayer money or public funding for abortion in some cases?

GIULIANI: If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right, yes. I mean if that — if that’s the status of the law then I would, yes.

Never mind Don Giuliani’s ties to Kerik and the North Jersey Altos…he supports the use of my hard-earned money to murder blastocyst-Americans.

So, there are our three top prospects to carry on the True Belief project begun so well by Our Leader. Is it possible that our 1000 Year Reign as conceived by the Godly Mr Rove will last a mere 8 years? Who will save us from the tyranny of teh IslamoDemocrats.

Mr Wooten worries about ‘two governments’ over the next two years. I worry about the unified SanFransissies taking over the entire kit and kaboodle in 2008. The spectre of Re-Education camps for White American Christians (with a special wing for the Malkin-types who think these camps are a good idea) looms before us like a phalanx of Illegal Aliens. I pheer we are phukked. The prosepect of being ruled by That Woman and one of Those People makes the Captain want to crawl back into bed with a bag of Cheetos.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Van,

Are you senile?

The scapegoats are in prison for torture.

I am disgusted you call yourself American but it is not about me, me, me.

By Disgusted

April 5, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

Captain Freedom,

I have it on good authority that Redneck Convert has trademarked the phrase Those People, and he does not forgive trespassing. Be forewarned.

By abc

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

The swift boat vets didn’t cost Kerry the Presidency. Voter fraud in Ohio and Florida cost Kerry the Presidency, same as it cost Gore the Presidency in 2000.

By rarringt

April 5, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

It seems like there’s some persistent confusion over certain key items relating to our Great Iraq Adventure, so let’s review a few facts that appear pertinent to today’s discussion…

My point? You do, of course have a right to an opinion, but please make sure it’s an informed one. Makes things so much more interesting on the blog.

By harold

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

This has not hit the airwaves yet but Harold has an inside source:

The Aqua Teen Hunger Force went to Iran and freed the British prisoners, killed Senor Amanadadajoub and replaced him with a muppet they then had proclaim the prisoners were released to cover their tracks because otherwise Boston might cry

By Dennis

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

By Van April 5, 2007 11:44 AM | “If there was torture, and not humiliation, where are the convictions?

“Your baseless allegations are just a reflection of your hatred of you our country - I am ashamed that you are still here.”

Any day now, I expect to see a headline blaring that Barney has escaped from the White house grounds.

Literally every morning we wake up to news of more defections from the alternative universe, even from amongst the True Believers.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it

By Van

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

getalife,

Butt brain.

Those that abused prisoners are in jail, yes, that is true.

Torture as a practice is not taking place. Only in mid-towner’s brain is tortured.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

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

I think it is obvious that the one government is Speaker Pelosi’s government.

w’s disaster must go.

By DebbieDoRight

April 5, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Oh Dear just LOOK what I pulled up out of the archives!!! Written by none other than Mr. Jim (One sided) Wooten himself!!

Atlanta Journal- Constitution 4/18/99 Jim Wooten “…This president is very deep into a mess. When and how will he get out of it? Lord only knows. Standing outside the hotel where President Clinton addressed the American Society of Newspaper Editors — intending to explain and lay philosophical groundwork for deeper involvement in Kosovo — some 500 protesters marched and shouted “No war, no bombs, no new Vietnam.” Chill bumps pop up. This could very well be Clinton’s repeat of LBJ’s legacy, another war that is vaguely defined, escalating and indefinite….Clinton, a war protestor, is now their target. And Clinton, a prevaricator under oath, responds to a question concerning his moral authority to dispatch Air Force pilots to war as follows: “I am their commander in chief and they swore an oath to the Constitution…” And so they did….”

Hmm sounds awfully like Iraq doesn’t it? Why has Mr. Wooten’s opinion changed? Is it because he has an unnatural love/idolation thing with the Republican Party, (who can do no wrong by the way); and can’t see his writings which now support this Iraq war, (for the same reasons he DIDN’T support the conflict in Kosevo),as twisted and, ahem, clearly hypocritical?

Poor, poor Mr. Wooten. Maybe he’s not hypocritical after all. Maybe he’s been abusing prescription drugs like his good friend Rush………either that or he’s going senile.

By getalife

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

Van,

I guess your brain blocks out the documented torture and pictures.

Whatever makes you feel better about being a failed American.

Loser.

By Truths Sister

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

Tftt: I’ve gotten a couple of no-knock warrants, (since you’re such a big fan of them), I’ll be coming to see you, (with my camera and a couple of buttt plugs for ya), after the police knock down your door and shoot you a couple of times. I will FINALLY be able to get rid of your illegal a$$ once and for all!! (and make a couple of bucks on the tranisexual websites); God bless no knock warrants!!! Don’t forget to smile! Smooches!!!

By getalife

April 5, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Good catch DebbieDoRight,

I brought this up before because the wingnuts did not support Clinton especially in Kosovo.

Hypocrites.

By harold

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

debbiedoright, mr wooten gets paid to hold these opionions. harold woudl do it too if they were that lucrative for harodl! its the other folks here holdign these opinion that you have to wonder about

By Dave

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

A recess appointment is NOT an abuse of power. Its part of the constitution. Same goes with the firing of the US attorneys. Now the congress complaining about the proper use of power, IS a problem, since they are trying to mislead the American people to think that normal executive powers are suddenly being “abused”. Shame on you for continuing this partisan dis-information.

By DebbieDoRight

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

REGIONAL CIVIL WAR? Iran and Syria are the primary supporters of the terrorists in Iraq and you suggest this war will spill over into those countries?

I thought it was Al-Quada isn’t that what our dear President Bush keeps telling us every chance he gets?

By Power of Light(Doom)

April 5, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Although this blog has been somewhat idiotic as of late, Doom felt compelled to announce his rebirth. From now on I will be know as the Power of Light!

By Dave

April 5, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

A recess appointment is NOT an abuse of power. Its part of the constitution. Same goes with the firing of the US attorneys. Now the congress complaining about the proper use of power, IS a problem, since they are trying to mislead the American people to think that normal executive powers are suddenly being “abused”. Shame on you for continuing this partisan dis-information.

By rarringt

April 5, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

Debbie,

Looks like you are on a roll today. Good for you. The Spelman Sisterhood would be proud.

:^)

By Power of Light

April 5, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

rarringt,

The Light is sure they would be proud if Debbie actually went there. She can’t even spell Spelman.

By Van

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

DebbieDoRight,

Recent polls of Iraqi’s suggest this is not a civil war. Only those in mid-town think so. This is a was waged by the Shiite powers in Iran and supported by his bunk-buddy in Syria.

Al-qeada, just one of the terrorist groups that are waging war against us. It might be the largest and most successful.

Oh, and to correct a previous poster, the President plainly stated, that he did not want Iraq to become an imminent threat. This is why Congress authorized him to go into Iraq.

By rarringt

April 5, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

Ok Van,

I’ll bite. Which polls? Conducted by whom? Can you provide us a few citations (as you mentioned “polls” in the plural sense)?

Or does the alleged polling exist merely in your mind?

By deegee

April 5, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

If we get two more years of this stuff, we’ll be laughing all the way to the polls. Check out Newto Gingricho hablando españolo. First of all, did he think that one single spanish-speaking voter would change their mind about what he said after watching this? Second, if he really meant what he said, why is he saying it IN SPANISH????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpZcRDSruNI

By Realist

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

Very good Debbie (Spellman sista)

I dug through the Jim Wooten archives a couple of weeks ago and found the same hypocrisy. He was critical of Clintoon for the use of executive priviledges yet he supports Bush’s use of it when it comes to protecting Pinky and the Brain. (Cheney and Rove)

By DebbieDoRight

April 5, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

Power of Light aka Sybil!!! You sure can manufacture those names can’t you! You sure do the Republicans PROUD!!

By Recon

April 5, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

Mother Pelosi accomplished more in one week than Bush did in six years in the middle east. You bet. She set the struggle of women’s liberation in the middle east back by at least 50 years. Good job Nancy - just ask a Syrian woman. It’s all about goose stepping on Bush. Damn everyone and everything else. link

Mother Nancy also apparently likes to lie, like saying she was bringing a peace message from Israel. This crazed woman is out of her lib mind - link

By Brad

April 5, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this

rarringt,

This might be the poll(s) that Van was referring to:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece

Here’s some other interesting data from this poll:

By Over and out

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

Yes, just like Mother Nancy, there were blind sheeple about Hitler during World War 2 as well - even making cartoons out of them - link

Stupid moonbats.

By getalife

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

Stupid wingnuts

Geez.

By DebbieDoRight

April 5, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this

I shooo be happy dat Obama be raisin’ a lot a money. Yasssa!

By getalife

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

Democrats Outraged Over Fox Recess Appointment Senate Democrats are livid over what they view as President Bush’s illegal maneuver to bypass the Senate confirmation process and appoint controversial nominee Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium while Congress is away on recess.

Mmmm, looks like it will hit the courts.

Can’t trust w, so no more breaks.

Watch the hate party howl they have to stay in Washington.

I bet they will vote to impeach him.

By Think Progress

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

The Washington Post editorial page today published an editorial about Speaker Pelosi, 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:

Pelosi passed an incorrect message from Israel to Syria. Pelosi said yesterday that she gave Syrian officials the message that Israel is “ready to engage in peace talks.” The Post falsely claims, “The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message,” misinterpreting a statement from the Israeli Prime Minister’s office that simply reiterated its position that talks with Syria will not take place until Syria has taken steps to end its support for extremist elements. There is no evidence that Pelosi failed to communicate this message. In fact, Pelosi’s delegation specifically pressed the Syrian president “over Syria’s support for militant groups and insist[ed] that his government block militants seeking to cross into Iraq and join insurgents there.”

Pelosi is attempting to “establish a shadow presidency.” This claim is directly contradicted by the Post’s own reporting this morning, which states, “Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi’s dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip.” Pelosi herself has “described the trip as little different than the visit paid to Syria the same week led by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA),” and she went to great lengths to express her unity of purpose with President Bush on terrorism issues. The Post’s own reporting today also cites several instances of members of Congress meeting with foreign leaders during the past 30 years. However, in contrast with Pelosi’s trip, previous congressional actions abroad attempted to directly undermine President Clinton.

By rarringt

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

Brad,

Thanks for the link. Interesting findings. I would have liked to know what they consider the violence to be, if not a civil war.

Then again, there are more than a few people in this country who don’t think the 1861-1865 conflict was a civil war, either.

Either way, it would be interesting to know.

By DebbieDoRight

April 5, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

rarringt,

I be don’t understand why dem whitefolks is a gonna keep dem troops out dar fightin’. If dey don’t bring dem troops back I sa gonna knock dey teef out!

By JP

April 5, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

The main reason that there are “2 governments” is that our President consistently fails to acknowledge the validity of others’ opinions and that another party controls Congress.

Or to put another way, the desire of Bush Co. to discuss public business over private gwb43.com email addresses is just one example of why Democrats, now in charge of the Oversight committee, appear to be “investigating everything.” Stop giving them things to investigate, by God.

By Dusty

April 5, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

rarringt,

You are such a disappointment. All that talk about blogging to get views on all sides. Then you act like a one sided liberal who never heard of fairness and equality.

DebbieDoRight has spent a lot of time going back to 1999 just to discount Jim Wooten. And why does she do that? I think it is because she is a paid investigator for undercover Democrats who try to load every source with anti-Republican propaganda. She once listed all the IDs she uses on innumerable sites. So I am not guessing at that.

Also she is the wife of a man in the military (her information) which makes it even stranger. She consistently criticizes the Commander-in-chief and the military in Iraq and American policy. If she isn’t paid, she certainly puts out a lot of liberal propaganda for nothing.(It is all in the ARCHIVES.)

As to her great discovery, Wooten was writing about another war, another president at a different time. Did you notice that? The President is still the Commander-in-chief and Wooten still has freedom of speech.

So carry on with your great open mind, rarringt, but realize what you are—a dead set liberal.

By DebbieDoRight

April 5, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

I shooo be happy dat Obama be raisin’ a lot a money. Yasssa!

OK that was NOT me. I’m surprised I’m such a threat to someone on this blog that they feel the need to “steal” my ID!! I’m impressed!! Thanks!!!

PS: The make believe “black” talk thing just proves what an illiterate stupid racist you really are; and it wasn’t funny. You might wanna work on that. Just a thought for the day.

By JP

April 5, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

Greenwald on the media:

*Leave aside the well-documented deceit that induced Americans to support the invasion in the first place. These Surge cheerleaders — the ones assuring us that things are finally now working and that we are compelled to let it work — are the same exact people who have been telling Americans ever since the invasion began that things are going great, that we are winning, that claims to the contrary are simply the inventions of the lying, America-hating media, that they strolled through markets in Basra and met with grateful Iraqis in Baghdad who kissed their hands and assured them that everything was so, so very great now that Americans are Winning.

They have repeatedly proven themselves to be the most craven and dishonest propagandists, people completely unburdened by reality and truth. Virtually everything they have said about Iraq over the four years of our occupation (never mind prior to it) has been blatantly and knowingly false — just look at what Pence has been saying. And this behavior has been as destructive as it is morally deranged — we stayed in Iraq, continuing on our disastrous course, and even re-elected the War President precisely because the Mike Pence’s constantly lied to the country by insisting that we were winning, that reports of violence and chaos were media lies, and that Glorious Victory was just around the corner.

And they’re still doing exactly the same thing, while continuing to reside in the core of our country’s political power, treated as though they are respectable and credible figures. Even though it’s not some new realization, it is nonetheless just staggering every time one goes and looks at their actual history — what they have done and said — and ingests the extent to which our government is run by such blatantly dishonest and amoral buffoons exactly like Mike Pence. And they continue to get quoted on the front page of The Washington Post as someone whose assessment of the Great Progress in Iraq is worth hearing.

Strictly for journalistic accuracy, every article that quotes someone like Mike Pence claiming that things are improving in Iraq and the Glorious Surge is working ought to include a statement that informs readers that Pence has been making exactly the same claims for four years straight, and that he announced in 2004 that we found WMDs in Iraq. Passing along his claims without including those vital facts is misleading.

It may sound extreme, but it really is difficult to understand how someone like Pence (and there are swarms of them) can read their own history of completely cringe-inducing propaganda and outright lies which they have repeatedly spewed over the last four years and do anything other than voluntarily disappear from public life in shame.*

By DebbieDoRight

April 5, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

If you’re gonna act like you’re talking from the days of Amos n Andy you could at least be funny!!! Say something like “The south will rise again!!” Now THAT’s funny!!!

By time for the truth

April 5, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

maggot brain’s sick lies and despicable dishonest distortions @11.11 am are freaking hilarious.

The Iranians’, you koolaid guzzling greaseball wanker, continuously execute prisoners publicly … they send their families a bill for the bullets chinese commie style inside their torture prisons. Female prisoners in Iran are routinely raped by thuggish mohammedan fascist gaurds who are “protected” from being guilty of ‘fornication’ crimes by the use of the vile sh!te ‘temporary marriage’ “ruse”. The Iranians routinely use torture, they “stone” women to death for adultery, they have religious police who are ex Iran-Iraq war vets paid by the state who use intimidation and physical oppression even more viciously than the towel heads in Saudi!!

Watch “Not Without My Daughter” to see how sick a place Iran is … not much has really changed in Iran since that film was made!! Nowadays just having a satellite TV dish is a major crime. As is owning copies of western films. Women have acid thrown in their faces by self appointed towel head zealouts for just wearing makeup in public.

Funny how the maggotbrained traitor maggotbrain disgustingly forgets that it was the current Iranian Hitler who was one of the leaders of the towel head “students” who held the US HOstages in Tehran for 444 days … these folks were subject to mock executions and all kinds of other abuse!!

the inbred sickster maggotbrain utterly ignores the fact that the UK hostages were intimidated into making false statements and used illegally for public propaganda, as well as pressured into publicly grovelling before the Iranian Hitler before being released.

they were illegally arrested and held in the first place.

maggotbrain forgets every outrage the Iranians quietly perpetrate every day aginst their own people - of course these hostages weren’t physically harmed - the whole world was watching!!

what the evil sick maggotbrain says on here has NO credibility and has all the worth of Tokyo Rosie or HitLLary lies!!

By rarringt

April 5, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

I’ll take that bet. Bush may be incompetent, immoral, incurious, insensitive, intransigent and politically insane, but he has broken no laws (as of yet). You can’t impeach someone for merely being a lousy president. You at least need the pretext of illegality.

Want to impeach someone? Start with yourself. And me. And everyone on this blog and in the country who didn’t do more to stop this travesty from happening. He’s our president (whether through election or acquiescence). This is our mess. This will be our legacy to our children.

If, with full knowledge of what has been, is, and will be happening, we do nothing but sit on the sidelines, then shame on all of us.

Want to make a point and make a change? Drive less. Get more involved in politics (blogging doesn’t count). Make sure your elected officials know your name and your views. Take more responsibility for your children’s education. For God’s sake, save your money (do you really need that 42” plasma). Exercise, and stop eating so much. Put away those yellow ribbons and Toby Keith CDs, and volunteer at a veteran’s hospital. Run for office. Read at least one paper and watch at least one show featuring people whose views you don’t agree with.

In short, you don’t need to sit on the Cabinet to do something of consequence.

By JohnM

April 5, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

Think Progress wrote, “previous congressional actions abroad attempted to directly undermine President Clinton”

Here’s an example of what he (or she) is refering to —

In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.”

http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB69/part3.html

“…a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.””

Subsequently, U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Myles Frechette sent a cable complaining that Hastert’s actions had undermined his leverage with the Colombian military leadership.

In other instances, Hastert actually guided congressional staff to unilaterally reach deals with Colombian officials:

“House Foreign Affairs Committee staff, at the direction of the Hastert group, would fly to Colombia, meet with the nation’s anti-narcotics police and negotiate the levels and terms of assistance, the scope of the program and the kinds of equipment that would be needed. Rarely were the U.S. diplomatic personnel in our embassy in Bogata consulted about the “U.S.” position in these negotiations, and in a number of instances they were excluded from or not even made aware of the meetings.”

If the right is looking for members of Congress clearly infringing on the president’s constitutional prerogatives, they should look at Hastert, not Pelosi.

By DebbieDoRight

April 5, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this

Time for the Truth,

You be maka me mad! I don’t be seein’ what so bad about Iran. Dem folks was nice enough to let dem funny talkin people go. Dat Pelosi gul went ova der to dem folks and set dem free! Hey Glory yall!

By getalife

April 5, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

rarringt,

You might want to check out the States that have voted to impeach him.

Here is one Republican from Texas

I agree with Ron Paul.

By Van

April 5, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

JP,

“Leave aside the well-documented deceit that induced Americans to support the invasion in the first place. “

I assume you are another “Bush Lied, people died” kool-aide drinker.

The Robb-Silberman Commission concluded the president did not lie about the intelligence on Iraq?

A Senate bipartisan panel concluded the same thing.

Please explain you barb please

By rarringt

April 5, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

Hi Dusty,

I’m at a bit of a loss here. Which blog were you referring to when you called me a one-sided liberal?

Was it the one where I chided Van for erroneously and irresponsibly assuming liberals rejoiced at watching good men and women taken hostage?

Or perchance it was where I stated to Van that we cannot any any way endorse torture and the denial of basic rights guaranteed to all citizens in the Constitution (which is what we’re selling to the world when we talk of “promoting democracy and american values”)?

Perhaps you’re miffed at my bullet points, the first 5 of which are factually correct. The last two represent elements of opinion, but are still valid points.

Or could it possibly be my patting Debbie on the back for her little find of an old Wooten chestnut which contradicts his current views? After all, it is a quote from his article.

So, if you can tell me which entry is the “unfair and unequal” one you are so disappointed in, I’ll be glad to respond. Note: being contrary to your worldview isn’t “unfair.” Seriously.

I respect the fact that you have different views. We come here, ostensibly anyway, to debate, promote and defend them. If your only defense is ad hominem attacks (Repugnicans, Demoncrats, etc.), then you should look deep and ask why you can’t use reason to be persuasive.

If that’s too much of a challenge for anyone here, try talk radio.

By Van

April 5, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

JP,

“Leave aside the well-documented deceit that induced Americans to support the invasion in the first place. “

I assume you are another “Bush Lied, people died” kool-aide drinker.

The Robb-Silberman Commission concluded the president did not lie about the intelligence on Iraq?

A Senate bipartisan panel concluded the same thing.

Please explain you barb please

By getalife

April 5, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

More on cherry picking on Speaker Pelosi

By jbmlaw

April 5, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

Dear leftist friends, this is how we conservatives view your arguments, displayed at various times today:

“There are valid reasons to quibble with the phrase “global war on terror”—primarily the last word, which focuses on the enemy’s tactical approach rather than on its identity, ideology and strategic goals.

“What the Democrats object to, however, is the idea that it is a “global war.” In particular, they are trying to sell the fantasy that Iraq is a discrete problem with no relation to any broader conflict—so that surrendering in Iraq would have no deleterious consequences for U.S. national security.

“It would be nice for Americans (albeit brutal for Iraqis) if the U.S. could simply cut its losses and abandon Iraq. But it seems to us there is far more wisdom in the holistic approach of the “global war.” America has failed to engage its enemies, or tactically retreated when the going got tough, repeatedly since Vietnam: Iran in 1979, Lebanon in 1983, Iraq in 1991, Somalia in 1993.

“There is ample reason to think that these shows of weakness—or, more precisely, of irresoluteness—emboldened America’s enemies. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, provided strong—at the time, seemingly irrefutable—evidence that taking the easy way out did not enhance American national security.”

I provide the quote without attribution, to prevent the usual leftist tactic of criticizing the speaker rather than the argument.

By Brock

April 5, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

Despite Van’s misinformation, the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction — co-chaired by Robb and Republican attorney and former judge Laurence Silberman — did not investigate whether the Bush administration misled the public about intelligence. Nor, for that matter, has any other governmental entity to date. Rather, the Robb-Silberman Commission concluded that “[t]he Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments in response to political pressure” in the buildup to the Iraq war.

Indeed, Bush’s February 6, 2004, executive order establishing the commission limited the scope of its investigation to the production of intelligence:

“[T]he Commission shall specifically examine the Intelligence Community’s intelligence prior to the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom and compare it with the findings of the Iraq Survey Group and other relevant agencies or organizations concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of Iraq relating to the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction and related means of delivery.”

In addition, the conclusion of the Robb-Silberman report that analysts received no “pressure” in gathering intelligence has been disputed by senior intelligence officials, including W. Patrick Lang, the former chief of the Middle East office of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and Richard Kerr, a onetime acting CIA director who led an internal investigation of the CIA’s failure to correctly assess Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

By Dusty

April 5, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

Realist aka Mr. Crude Comments,

Yesterday you were correct. My description to Jack was not honest. I do not look like Marilyn Monroe. I look like Mona Lisa.

By time for the truth

April 5, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

Even I know that the sad belligerent racist crackpipe can (usually) just about manage slightly better ebonics @1.50pm than that!!

Although I agree with you crackpipe’s usual brainless dismissal of actual facts is invariably on this level. This is much cleverer and apposite, authentic (because its actually credible and believable) satire than anything the sad racist feckpig inbred rednekkk has ever puked up!!

By jbmlaw

April 5, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

Dear Debbie @ 12:08 and Getalife @ 12:16, I acknowledge that Bill Clinton dedicated a great deal of effort to protect America from the world-wide Serbian threat, and for that he deserves our undying thanks. Now will you two get on board in our fight against the Islamists, who are a proven threat to our freedom?

Dear Debbie @ 12:24, you will be interested in the fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq – we’re winning. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009900

By Mark

April 5, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw posted, “What the Democrats object to, however, is the idea that it is a “global war.” In particular, they are trying to sell the fantasy that Iraq is a discrete problem with no relation to any broader conflict…”

jbmlaw is mistaken. What the Democrats object to is applying limited resources to misplaced priorities. Democrats want to re-deploy our weakened military to Afghanistan to help existing NATO forces where there is a resurgence of the Taliban and al Queda. Unlike Republicans, Democrats also listen to the multitude of experts who say that the solution in Iraq will be a political one, not a military one.

Given the fact that military operations are taking place with various internation participants, this war is, by definition, global. However, jbmlaw’s hero Newt and friends like using the word “global” because, in their minds, it gives the commander-in-chief automatic authority to invade any country at any time without a Congressional declaration of war. If a Democrate is elected President in ‘08, they’ll quickly change their tune.

By rarringt

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

Hi jbmlaw,

I checked your cites (darn lawyers). None of the quotes you cite appear anywhere on today’s blog.

That’s a bit…unusual for you. You should know you’re only allowed to make it up after properly quoting a cite.

It’s hard to respond to such arguments (especially when they’re being made by a straw man), but you’re usually a good playmate in the park, so I’ll try to indulge you.

We don’t know the battlefield or the combatants (or really, who our potential allies are), but we’re in love with declaring victory (without knowing what that means, either). People are dying for this directionless delusion we call a war.

A Japanese proverb says “A plan without action is a dream; action without a plan is a nightmare.” As a nation, I fear we’ve all had a bit too much spicy food before going to bed.

Iran-Contra, the Bush administration blowing off briefings by the outgoing Clinton administration, which had spoken for years on the topic, the congress, ignoring Clinton’s efforts to combat terrorism and bin Laden as a ruse to direct attention away from the more important Lewinsky scandal, being given a warning about Al-Quaeda a month before, and ignoring it - these are all things that may, in some small part, have opened the door for the attacks.

But instead, you want it to all be Clinton’s fault.

I provide the response with full attribution, to prevent the usual rightist tactic of distorting the argument by conjuring up a (straw man) speaker.

By Dennis

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

DebbieDo Right @12:08 “Poor, poor Mr. Wooten. Maybe he’s not hypocritical after all.”

I don’t know about “hypocritical”. But I’m beginning to suspect that the poor guy actually believes what he writes. Typical neocon. The truth of a matter doesn’t make any difference.

You don’t have to be a blind conservataive not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By FYI

April 5, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

President Bush: “We actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies [aka: The S.A.I.E.W.D.N.B.I.F.S.] who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.”

Donald Rumsfeld: “I don’t think I would have called it the war on terror…. Why do I say that? Because the word ‘war’ conjures up World War II…”

By JP

April 5, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

Van, I trust that you figured out that since I started off with a “from” clause ending in a colon, and had stars around the rest of the text, that my “barb” was a quote - right? You are intelligent enough to figure that out?

By getalife

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

World wide Serbian threat?

Geez.

Islamists?

Please, real Americans are not scared of rhetoric.

They will not convert you to Islam idiot unless you cower to their hate speech.

Grow a spine fakelaw.

Geez.

For the 9/11 families, there must be justice for OBL and his gang.

It is not going to happen with w, he could care a less about OBL.

By JP

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

Van,

[pssst: this is another quote] A little more for you from Glenn regarding that buildup to war which you misguidedly believe was genuine (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/09/pressinvestigations/index.html):

A new report by the Pentagon’s Inspector General documents what everyone other than the hardest core Bush followers already knows: namely, that “Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included ‘reporting of dubious quality or reliability’ that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community.” It is vitally important to ensure that those who were responsible for the deceit that led us into Iraq are identified and held accountable.

But that responsibility extends beyond Bush officials into most of the nation’s most influential media outlets. Gilbert Cranberg, former Editorial Page Editor of The Des Moines Register and Tribune and Professor of Journalism at the University of Iowa, has published a superb article at the excellent Nieman Watchdog site (affiliated with the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard), in which he calls for a serious and independent investigation into the profound pre-war failures of our media…..

By rarringt

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

Getalife,

bin Laden? Who’s that? Haven’t heard about him in a long time. Did he do something bad?

By DebbieDoRight

April 5, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight has spent a lot of time going back to 1999 just to discount Jim Wooten. And why does she do that?

I do it for the FUN of it. I do it because I ENJOY pulling people like him, people who’s morals are bought and paid for quicker than a NY prostitute’s, down to the common denominator, TRUTH vs. LIES. I do it because why the heck NOT? Should I just BELIEVE anything he says, as you do, and take it for gospel truth? Should I just IGNORE his blatant hypocrisy because it’s an inconvenient time to point it out? And to paraphrase Limp Bizkit, I do it for the nookie.

Also she is the wife of a man in the military (her information) which makes it even stranger. She consistently criticizes the Commander-in-chief and the military in Iraq and American policy. If she isn’t paid, she certainly puts out a lot of liberal propaganda for nothing.(It is all in the ARCHIVES.)

Oh Boo hoo…..I don’t want to cash in my husband’s insurance policy yet, nor do I want anyone else who cares about human life or their spouse to have to go through the pain of loosing them to a made-up war by a corrupt administration; that’s costing more in lives than it’s worth. You always claim to support the troops; yet you don’t do anything but blog about the glory of war and death and disease — I have yet to read you EVER saying how you’ve sponsored a military family, or even SPOKE to one to thank them for the sacrifice that their spouse is making for people like you, war mongers, who keep cheering this war on while you watch the stock market and your Haliburton stocks rise. Your patriotism comes very cheaply — a couple of pieces of silver is all it takes.

As to her great discovery, Wooten was writing about another war, another president at a different time. Did you notice that?

I notice that you are REALLY upset that I spoke out against the great Jim Wooten, are you perhaps his newest “fling”? Or better yet, Wooten himself?! Nothing would surprise me anymore; you republicans change your skins often, like snakes.

The President is still the Commander-in-chief and Wooten still has freedom of speech.

As do I.

By jbmlaw

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

Dear Mark, I assume you are one who believes that US “irresoluteness” (in 1979 Iran, 1983 Lebanon, 1991 Iraq, and 1993 Somalia) had no causative relation to the 1993 attack at the World Trade Center and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, nor in the 9/11 attack. Famous quote: “America is a great power possessed of tremendous military might and a wide-ranging economy, but all this is built on an unstable foundation which can be targeted, with special attention to its obvious weak spots. If America is hit in one hundredth of these weak spots, God willing, it will stumble, wither away and relinquish world leadership.” Hint: it was not a US leftist.

Dear rarringt @ 2:45, I fear my clumsy language introduced confusion for you, and for that lack of clarity I apologize. I collectivized all of today’s leftist (collectivists) arguments in my mind, and offered the quote (from a WSJ website) as response. The quote is an answer to all I have read by leftists today, not intended to reflect any specific post.

By getalife

April 5, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

rarringt,

Well, the Dems want to get him for some silly reason.

It might have something to do with the attack on 9/11.

w does not think about him after he spewed on the bullhorn that he would get him.

By DebbieDoRight

April 5, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

Dear jbmlaw @ 2:21 PM

I was on board,when we went to Afghanistan, (remember them?), to fight the people responsible for 9/11, Al Queada and The Taliban, in their own back yards, to ferret out their main cells and to bring Bin Laden, (Osama Bin Laden), to his knees and make him pay for what he did to America. Whatever happened to that endeavor?

Dear Debbie @ 12:24, you will be interested in the fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq – we’re winning.

We are?! So you mean after all these years we’ve finally tracked down Bin Laden and brought him to justice and crippled Al Quaeda at it’s source both financially and militarily for its crimes against America!! WOW!! Thanks for letting me know that!!!

By Dusty

April 5, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

rarringt@ 2:02

I was referring to today’s blog if you want an example of a one-sided liberal.

11:59 Your post differed almost totally from the points made by General Petraeus on Lehrer News Hour last night on Channel 30. You wanted an informed source. He is one and he is there. There were no rote answers. Look it up if you want to hear what he said.

1:45 You proclaimed that President Bush was immoral among other dubious accusations. “Moral” has a wide variation but the most common reference is to personal behavior. There is nothing immoral in the behavior of President Bush.
If you try to say that this President and this war is immoral then so is Congress, CIA and the American people who agreed with the President that this war was necessary.

Our country has never approved of torture. The regulations are there. Those who break them are convicted and put in prison, as happened at Abu Ghsrib. The military has convicted anyone in their ranks of breaking humanitarian rules and it has happened.

There have been no head choppings and body desecrations at Gitmo. Perhaps you would like to side with the enemy on that one also. Would you prefer an American interrogation or one by terrorist?

Then you smugly and blindly suggested that I would use ad hominen attacks in stead of reasoning. Are you so unaware that you haven’t noticed that I don’t use such “attacks”.? Or were you talking about “one-sided liberal”? I thought you would think that was a compliment. For me, it would be quite the opposite.

So my reasoning doesn’t agree with yours therefore I don’t have any. Now that’s some invitation to discussion if I ever heard one.

Why don’t you follow your own suggestion? Go listen to the radio.

By Realist

April 5, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

Dusty, *Realist aka Mr. Crude Comments,

Yesterday you were correct. My description to Jack was not honest. I do not look like Marilyn Monroe. I look like Mona Lisa.*

So you went from looking like a meth/ crack head to looking like a tranny?

By Mark

April 5, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

We were resolute in 1979, and as a result, the hostages were released — unharmed. We were also resolute in 1991, and as a result, Kuwait was liberated from Hussein’s army.

Yes, one can argue that we were “irresolute” in Lebanon and in Somalia (although your oversimplified choice of semantics are actually intended to dismiss the complexities behind the policies and decisions made by Presidents Reagan and Clinton in these circumstances).

Do I think that we were attacked on 9/11 because we pulled out of Beirut and Somalia? Absolutely not. In fact, I think that creating a cause and effect relationship among these events is beyond stupid.

We lost about 3,000 on 9/11. Depending on which surveys you use, Iraqis have lost 60,000 plus. How many Iraqis need to die before you determine that we’ve been “resolute” enough?

If “resolute” is your touchstone, then we should be resolute in Afghanistan (we haven’t been). We should be resolute at implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations. We should have been resolute at implementing the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

By Dusty and Logic = Oil and Water

April 5, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this

Dusty wrote @3:22, “…you smugly and blindly suggested that I would use ad hominen attacks instead of reasoning. Are you so unaware that you haven’t noticed that I don’t use such attacks.?”

Dusty also wrote @3:22, “Perhaps you would like to side with the enemy on that one also.”

Classic Dusty.

By Dusty

April 5, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight,

Boohoo yourself. I am no advocate for the principle of war but if America is in one, I want us to win. Most people in the military want to win. From the propaganda you put out, you obviously do not.

As to your snide remarks about Jim Wooten, I like what he writes but I have never met him. Ignominious remarks come easily to you. Seems like you could do better than that.

By EJ

April 5, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

We have two governments because we have a president and a GOP that won’t listen to the will of the people that put them in office. They or intent on doing what they want to do dispite what the people of this country thinks or the rest of the world thanks. You have to have a plan to exit. We went into this war to free Iraq of Saddam. We have done that now its time to bring the troops home. Win what war. We aren’t playing a game of win or lose. These are real lives out there in Iraq. We had a mission, we accomplished it,let come home. And stop waisting untold money and lives in Iraq. Iraq will work out their differences one way or another. Pelosi did the right thing to go to Damascus. Communication negotiation and planning is always better then war. We have two goverments because one(W,GOP) won’t do either.

By Dusty

April 5, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

Realist@3:34,

What’s a “tranny”?

By For the Record ....

April 5, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this

Here is a very specific question — first posed by Donald Rumsfeld a couple of year ago as the insurgents began to increase the frequency of attacks on Coalition forces — that must be answered if we are to gauge the efficacy of Bush/Cheney’s Iraqi policy within the larger context of the “Global War on Terror”:

Are we creating more Islamic terrorists with our Iraqi policy than we are killing or capturing?

Rational analysis, please, as opposed to “our leftist friends don’t understand Bush’s genius for strategic thinking” or some such nonsense.

By oldpunk

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

Wooten, you are aware that Republicans were just in Syria? And that they were sent by the Bush Administration? Arent you? Where’s your scorn for them?

By Pope rednecks - Amerikka's Al Qaeda I

April 5, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this

Both of realisp’s parents were trannies, Dusty, and he continues the tradition. “Tranny” means “typical Alabama cowardly POS”.

By Captain Freedom

April 5, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

The Captain notices that another of Pelosi’s Californislamofreak fellow travellers has come out in criticism of Our Leader.

Asked to comment on Bush’s criticism of the congressmen’s visits to Damascus, Rep. Darrell Issa said: ‘President Bush, is the head of state, but he hasn’t encouraged dialogue. That’s an important message to realize: we have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies.’

It’s time we took the damned Demoncrat traitors out and lines ‘em up against a wall, given a ciggie and a blindfold, and be done with their enemy coddling.

By DebbieDoRight

April 5, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this

Dusty: Prove your support, since you like to blog, below is a blog where you can truly be of some use by helping out with information; and you can help your way, if not my way, by blogging from the comfort of your home. Why don’t you READ what some of the things that military wives/families go through. Perhaps that’ll help broaden your horizon and perspectives. Maybe who knows.

Below is the introduction to the blog by the woman who started it. Afterwards will be the link.

Ladies,

There are a couple of threads in this forum started by women who have husbands who are wounded. This is a very difficult and lonely situation and support is always needed. I have participated in a couple of those threads, but the titles are vague and I wanted to start a thread whose title would would jump out to a wife in this situation seeking support.

To be clear, my own husband is not wounded but I worked at Walter Reed as a Red Cross volunteer supporting those families who experienced this difficult situation.

Find each other here, share your stories and advice. Those of us who are always willing to listen can find you here and offer our love and support. You are not alone.

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/90600431813/m/8100015790001

By Friend in True Belief

April 5, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this

Captain Freedom,

Isn’t Rep. Issa a Republican?

By DebbieDoRight

April 5, 2007 4:45 PM | Link to this

Are we creating more Islamic terrorists with our Iraqi policy than we are killing or capturing?

IMO YES

By Bush's Suicide Surge

April 5, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

“The fact some of the brigade’s 4,000 soldiers missed that training raises questions about how well the Army is preparing troops for war in the face of accelerated and repeat deployments…”

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/articledisplay.jsp?vnucontent_id=1003567503

By Captain Freedom

April 5, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this

D’oh!!!

The Captain remembers Rep Issa weeping like a grandmother after the Gropenator smacked him around in the governor’s race. He was such a little girly man that I was sure he from the Democrat party.

In light of this new information, it is clear that Rep Issa is either i) a Republican in name only or ii) engaging in some brilliant psycho-jiu jitsu designed by the White House to lull Assad into a false sense of security before we turn his coutnry to rubble.

I bet on #ii. History reminds us that this worked well for Bush the Senior when he had April Glaspie assure Saddam that he was still Big George’s BFF, no matter what. Clever ba$tard$, yes?

By Dusty

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

Oh repeated again and again!!!!!

Several Republicans went to Syria.

WE KNOW THAT.. The White House Spokeswoman said that they did NOT want anybody going to Syria. The WhiteHouse knew they were going but the Republicans were not stopped just like Pelosi was not stopped.

BUT..I have heard of NO reports that these Republicans told Pres. Assad that they had promises from Israel as Pelosi incorrectly announced. Even Israel had to deny that.

Those visiting Republicans did NOT act like they were the president, just congressmen on a fact finding tour. They did not hint that they had “helped with Iran”.

In fact, I have read little or nothing about these Republicans while newscasters have acted like Pelosi was royalty visiting Syria. The “news” are just now realizing what an unhappy political promotion it was.

Two governments in action: one real one and one wannabe. I don’t believe our Constitution allows a wannabe intruder.

By getalife

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

There is only one government and it is obvious we the people are not represented.

The hate party represents their friends like Fox and corporations.

No taxation without representation.

By jm

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

Well, based on title of his column, Mr. Wooten does not seem to be a fan of the separation of powers (unless of course, there is a democrat in power, then he is all for it). Unfortunately for W the incompetent, there are people in the house and senate now who are willing and able to tell him “No !!”.

By Boot In Your A*

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

Friend in True Belief (at 4:38),

Are you not aware that exposing Republican hypocrisy only serves to embolden the enemy? Bite your tongue sir — lest Dusty shall rip it out and stuff it down your traitorous throat.

Friend in True Belief? I think not.

By oldpunk

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

Breaking news - Republican rep Darell Issa is meeting with the Syrian president right now! Quick Jim, to the barricades! Insult the man until hes a quivering pile of jelly!

By Paul

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

Dusty @4:56,

Not that there’s any hope that you’ll ever stop making a fool out of yourself — but read the posts at 1:25 and 1:47.

By Dennis

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

By Bush’s Suicide Surge

April 5, 2007 4:47 “The fact some of the brigade’s 4,000 soldiers missed that training raises questions about how well the Army is preparing troops for war in the face of accelerated and repeat deployments…”

And while our troops are missing the trainning they need and being short changed on equipment, the enemy is getting better and better.

Let’s face it, six years ago Bush/Rumsfeld tried to fight this war on the cheap and now our troops are paying for it.

Oh, and then there’s the little matter of inept medical treatment for our Iraqi wounded and other veterans.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Ken Roberts

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

Separation of powers is great for democracy and our Republic. With one party controlling everything you essentially hand over power to a select few people. That’s very dangerous for America and for the world, as recent history has shown.

By Politics Aside

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

CNN just reported that McCain wore a bullet proof burka during his recent widely-publicized visit to a Baghdad market so he wouldn’t be targeted by all the insurgents who were there buying ammo and nitro glycerin, which, thanx to the NRA, is available to anyone in Iraq or America without an ID or waiting list.

A political movement supporting the NRA is three years old in Iraq, in fact, at a recent rally, the speaker, a certain Charleton Hestonijad, held up an IED and yelled, from my cold, severed and fragmented hands, of course, if you can find them at all, but you all know what I mean….”

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

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

Thank you, Speaker Pelosi for getting the British hostages released from Iran. Looks like you’re another Ronald Reagan, without the dementia.

By jbm fan

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

Was Pelosi in Syria unfairly accused?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/newstheswamp/2007/04/waspelosi_unfa.html

By JP

April 6, 2007 9:06 AM | Link to this

You know, some of us were hoping that split control would slow down the Bush administration’s rampant disregard for the Constitution.

Instead, Bush uses recess appointments to thumb his nose at the Legislative branch.

F the President, indeed.