Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2008 > May > 29 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USMcClellan’s shocking revelation
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
A shocking revelation! An American President made the decision to sell his distant goals for peace in the Middle East by focusing on the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to accounts of the tell-all book by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan.
If true — and we’ll have to wait for a more balanced historical accounting that includes first-hand accounts of the actual participants in decision-makingto know whether Bush serving future generations, as I believe, or settling an old score for his dad, as the loopy-left believes — the news is hardly indictable.
If marketing to the American people a policy that the President believes is in the country’s best interest is a crime, we’d have to dig up and indict an awful lot former presidents — FDR on lend-lease, for example. McClellan doesn’t believe, however, that Bush was intentionally deceptive. “I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people.”
The White House, obviously stung by the betrayal, called McClellan’s tell-all sour grapes. “Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House,” said Dana Perino, the current press secretary. “We are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew.”
He was eased out earlier than he’d planned to leave and was apparently embittered that he was kept out of the loop on key policy decisions — not a good policy, incidentally, for any president, governor or other chief executive who has to sell his policies and ideas to a mass audience.
McClellan also indicts the media for “covering the march to war instead of the necessity of war.” He said Bush made the decision by early 2002 or earlier — the terrorist attack on America was Sept. 11, 2001 — though the actual war in Iraq was not launched until March 19, 2003. The President’s primary reason was “an ambitious and idealistic post-9/11 vision of transforming the Middle East through the spread of freedom, ” according to press accounts of the book. Bush and key advisers made “a marketing choice,” he said, to downplay that view in favor of the weapons of mass destruction threat. Bush and others made “the WMD threat and the Iraqi connection to terrorism appear just a little more certain, a little less questionable than they were,” said he.
The anti-war left will feel vindicated. I’ll wait for a more balanced view — and the memoirs of the President and those who were actually in the meetings and heard the intelligence. I’m not a fan of kiss-and-tell people or their books — especially when their disloyalty comes in a time of war. And for credible second-guessers on national security, public policy, executive management and leadership, I’ll turn to somebody above the pay grade of press secretary.
Services »
Comments
By candide
May 29, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this
You know what the Romanians did to their evil president, Ceaucescu. Bush ought to worry.
By jbmlaw
May 29, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. I cannot imagine why everyone does not turn to the press secretary assigned to domestic policy for information about formulation of international policy – sounds like the leftist way of doing things to me. Certainly as Scott McClellan feels the anguish of lies, we can anticipate that he will donate all of his share of revenues from the book to military relief, for benefit of the fallen heroes. Not. I think this is all about separating leftists from their money, as they are the only potential market for the screed. I have no anguish about “truths” that separate leftists from their money, so I wish Scott well.
“An American President made the decision to sell his distant goals for peace in the Middle East by focusing on the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq…” That is partially true. The WMD argument was not foremost in President Bush’s call for elimination of the Iraqi tyrant; best I recall it was item # four out of around six arguments. It became prominent when our leftist brothers, in principled opposition to firm action in Iraq, began to assert – obviously without any sound basis - that we would lose 50,000 men nearly instantly due to Saddam’s WMDs. At the point in the argument, President Bush seized that issue as an excellent reason to disarm the murderer. I suppose it is fair to acknowledge that President Obama would never take a strong action against a dangerous rogue nation.
By Redneck Convert
May 29, 2008 8:44 AM | Link to this
Well, this McClellan ain’t nothing but a Trader. Throwing off on My President like that. I bet Sister Dusty is fit to be tied this a.m., seeing as how she is a big fan of President Bush and the war on the terrists.
Anyway, there ought to be a law against people telling what they know when they work for the White House. He sure didn’t talk that way when he was drawing taxpayer money and working there. He needs to be took out and strung up. Back in my younger days we knowed how to deal with people like him. You got a few sheets and made some gowns and hoods and paid a little visit at night.
I think it was a mistake to let this McClellan go without arranging for a little axident first. People got to learn that when you fire somebody you need to make sure they can’t talk. Like the Clintons done with Vince Foster.
They won’t never stop till My President has ratings down in the teens and drags McCain down with him. People will be real sorry then. We will have a librul Democrat as president and come dragging out of Iraq with our tail between our legs and the guvmint will take everything we make from us and Those People will get all kind of welfare and think they are just as good as us and the gays will be lining up to marry all over the U. S. of A.
Anyhow, I’m disgusted again but I got beer to deliver. So I’ll let jbmlaw and Sister Dusty and other godly Republicans work this McClellan over today. Have a good day everybody.
By George Washington
May 29, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
This should come as no shock to anyone reading woodenhead’s column lo these many years: I have been telling you the chimp is a liar, traitor, coward, dry drunk, and a druggie: that the invasion of Iraq was wrong, that the neocons like wolfoweasel, filthy feithie, liar libbie, pukie pearlie whispered war, war, war in the chimps ear until the chimp thought he was the god of war, and that fools like woodenhead, jmblaw, and dirt ball had empowered the chimp. You don’t need to read the book, just review the past columns.
By getalife
May 29, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
We already knew w is a pos.
Nothing new, he is just cashing in on destroying our country like the rest of the criminals.
Stand proud Jim of your failed party.
By Copyleft
May 29, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this
“If true, the news is hardly indictable.” Close, Wooten, very close; the more accurate description would be “While true, this is hardly news.”
The media’s obedient-lapdog response to the administrations lies and excuses was well documented and even openly admitted, YEARS ago. McClellan is coming very late to that party.
And isn’t it funny that every ex-admin official who comes clean is suddenly “biased and bitter” and presenting a slanted, partisan viewpoint? Funny, there was never any concern about that when they were faithfully parroting the Bush agenda….
By Chadworth
May 29, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this
It is not surprising that the lib media is drooling and all over McClellan’s new book slamming Bush. Well McClellan is right on two matters: 1), Bush and the Republicans destroyed this nation, and 2), if I were set to make tens of millions on a book, I’d slam Bush AND his daddy – hell I’d be tempted to write a book and slam my best friend if I knew I could make such money.
Now, how have Bush and the Republicans destroyed this nation? They have sat back and done nothing for eight years while Democrats passed legislation, from Ted Kennedy’s education Bill to caving in on judicial appointments.
Further, they have destroyed this nation by pi$$ing off a lot of Americans who voted for them as Conservatives and as Republicans. If said voters wanted to put Liberals and Democrats in office, they would have voted as such. Do any of you Liberals honestly believe that Bush’s consistent 70-80% disapproval rating is only representative of Bush haters and the left and reflective of the majority of the nation wanting a Liberal Democrat in office?
So, here we are, on the verge of a completely controlled Liberal Democrat congress and White House in Washington all because Conservatives and Republicans sat on their asses and did nothing for eight years except fight radical Islamic terrorism and give us a couple of tax cuts. Well whoop-tee-do. They have pi$$ed off their voter base and many may just sit home and let Obama win.
Rumor has it that the Democrats I Congress led by Nancy will raise taxes on just about everything. Do you think that will only be on those evil rich? Are you kidding? Try taxing your retirement portfolio like 401k; try taxing money you attempt to give to your children before you die; try taxing your estate more before you die; try taxing your every move and purchase more. If any of you honestly believe Republicans have destroyed this nation, you haven’t seen anything yet.
Liberal Democrat ideas like corn ethanol to stop global warming – which is one reason why our food prices are soaring - are only the beginning for what’s ahead for this nation folks. But you watch the media over the next few years. They’ll be saying we’re in good times again when more of our paychecks and retirement accounts disappear to increased taxes as well as jobs disappearing to more corporate taxes and regulations. Do you think this administration has been a failure? Oh just you wait until full Liberal Democrat control takes over. It will be real “good times” indeed man. Tsk tsk.
By Dennis
May 29, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
I am with you on this Jim. Time will tell.
But isn’t it fun watching Bookman and his buddies gushing all over themselves. I expect his next blog to be titled “Bush’s chickens coming home to roost”.
By Laquisha
May 29, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this
Hey all,
I had blue berry muffins and oatmeal for breakfast this morning after my run.
Anyone go on any nice dates lately? I met a nice man the other day. We’ll have to see how it goes.
Bye for now.
By ron
May 29, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
Good morning all you all, When politicians move their lips,lies come out.I don’t profess to know the reason that Bush went to Iraq,but I’m fairly certain it wasn’t for the reasons stated.I have to choose between whether Bush lied or that the entire intelligence gathering mechanism of the U.S. is woefully defunct.
McClellan’s book can be read,digested,pored over and added to the other information I have at my disposal in order for me try to sort out a decision as to what happened with Iraq.I am sure he has some very salient points and I am sure he has an axe to grind.I will take everything he says with a dose of NaCL.
By ghost rider
May 29, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this
McClellan’s shocking revelation By Jim Wooten | Thursday, May 29, 2008, 08:03 AM
Jim get serious! This is no more shocking than anything else this administration has conjured up!
You would have to be blind or have had your head in the sand for the last 6 years to not realize this was a totally made up war!
This incompetent bunch of immoral, war mongers led by Cheney, fueled by Rumsfeld and, enabled by Bush are now beginning to feel the HEAT!
Only a true right wing nut job would still believe anything this administration says or does.
One can only wonder when Colin Powell will come out with his expose?
By Chris Salzmann
May 29, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this
So how many TELL ALL books have been written by former Bush insiders??? I think the number is at least over 20. Wow, even Slick Bill didn’t p** that many people off. Seems like the closer you get to Bush, the less you like him.
By Maniac is accurate
May 29, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
Laquisha has made the perfect point. In the grand scheme (or minor scheme) of things, this book means less than nothing as does all the blather being wasted on it. Bah and humbug to the whole thing.
By dirty harry
May 29, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
By Chadworth
May 29, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this
CHADWORTH you say “Now, how have Bush and the Republicans destroyed this nation? They have sat back and done nothing for eight years while Democrats passed legislation, from Ted Kennedy’s education Bill to caving in on judicial appointments.”
I hate to remind you CHADWORTH that the republicans controlled the congress for 6 of the last 7 1/2 years, and the president also has what’s called the VETO pen, which he never used during those first 6 years!
By Jason
May 29, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this
Sometimes, the truth hurts. If this truth wasn’t so tragic for all of us Americans, particularly the ones that have lost their lives and the ones with crippling injuries carrying out Bush’s destructive policies, it would surely be laughable. Mr. McClellan’s words are not news to anyone with their heads out of the sand, but it is reassuring to hear someone from the “inside” of Bush’s inner circle actually tell the truth for a change. Something the others apparently were never taught by their mommies.
By George Washington
May 29, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this
Bush is just a stupid, easily manipulated puppet for the neocons….All neocons everywhere should be held accountable for the war in iraq….cut off all foreign aid to israel now….
By hirsutedawg
May 29, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this
sell his distant goals for peace Ha! All Americans and over 4,000 soldiers were sold was a bill of goods by a jingoistic moron and his soulless evil minions. You can spin the Iraq fiasco/quagmire anyway you want. It was the wrong war against the wrong people at the wrong time. The harsh spotlight of history is already starting to shine on this morally bankrupt administrtation. The great burden lifts 1/20/09 and then our great country can get back to being what is once was…..great.
By Chadworth
May 29, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
Hey Dirty Harry, you are correct - that’s why I said it was practically a Democrat led Congress!
But if there are any doubts about my comments about the real destruction of this nation under Liberal Democrat rule, take a look at this study about that hoax of global warming and the effect on our nation and her people - broken down by STATE. Everyone knows that Liberals are the ones who want to use that farce to increase taxes and growth inhibiting regulations.
Be careful what you wish for donkeys - you could cause another massive tidal change in eight years and wake up the sleeping elephant.
By dirty harry
May 29, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this
By Chadworth
May 29, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
Point well taken!
By Harry S.
May 29, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this
How can you be so consistently wrong?
Why wait for the co-conspirators to tell their side of the story, we have heard their spin (lies) for the past seven years. Bush used 9/11 against the American people. He used the worst day in our history to start this war for his own ego and profit for his business partners.
They all lied to cover up their crimes. Over 4000 soldiers are dead and their families ruined because of those lies. The economy has crashed, thousands more are dead and two American cities have been destroyed. But you want to give them a little more time to get their stories straight. You republicans sure are reasonable and generous when it comes to your buddies, always willing to give them the benefit of doubt!
By What a joke
May 29, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this
For some unknown reason I read this waste of time, just to see what the other side might be saying about the issue.
First Wooten, this article is typical right wing garbage, punctuated by the right wing tactic of speaking out of both sides of your mouth. How can you say you are waiting for a more “balanced view”, which includes of all people Bush himself, who is so delusional that he actually thinks people will look back on this war as a good thing. Tell that to the thousands of dead kids and their families. I guess you’re going by the Fox News definition of “balanced”. It will also be a sad day for you when those other “intelligence advisors” come out and reaffirm what we have all known. Bush was totally clueless to any national security threats or issues, had no post-war plans (which is the main reason the post invasion occupation has mired us in such a costly, lengthy and deadly mess), is economically challenged, and completely inept at handling domestic issues (as evidenced by Katrina). When all of these other views you’re waiting for finally come out, and to your utter amazement confirm the facts, will you continue to look for more balanced views until there is no one left standing on your side, or will you wake up and accept that you have been wrong all this time.
By john
May 29, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
Beyond all the typical Bush insults being reported from McClellan’s book, the one that I found most telling was McClellan’s description of Bush as having a “lack of inquisitiveness.”
I’ve never thought that Bush was evil or that he intentionally decieved us. I just think that he’s a nitwit who doesn’t ask insightful questions and is incapable of any real critical thought.
Regardless of how you feel about the Iraq war now, for a President of the U.S. to tell the entire world that Iraq has stockpiles of WMD and then launch an all-out invasion without knowing with absolute certainty is unbelievably bone-headed. Sure Clinton thought that Saddam had WMD, but he didn’t know for fact and he wasn’t dumb enough to invade a country without knowing for fact.
With few tough questions for his advisors, a good President would have quickly figured out that it wasn’t such a ‘slam dunk’ after all.
I can not believe that people actually voted for this guy—twice.
By SharonH, antiwar leftist
May 29, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
Actually Jim, I didn’t need Scottie’s book to make me feel “vindicated”. I already knew about all the lies and deceptions that Bush and co. was propagating and I didn’t need some turncoat to come out and validate me. And don’t you get tired of trying to spin these types of things? Every time someone defects from the Bush team and says, “Hey ya’ll was right”, you have to come up with yet another excuse about why they are finally telling the truth. You must be exhausted after all these years!
As for history…..well some of your folks are still fighting the Civil War so we know you will never admit Bush was wrong. Not in 10 years, not in 100.
By TW
May 29, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
Those with their head outside their colon already knew all this.
Barr ‘08 The cleansing of the right has begun.
By What a joke
May 29, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
For some unknown reason I read this waste of time, just to see what the other side might be saying about the issue.
First Wooten, this article is typical right wing garbage, punctuated by the right wing tactic of speaking out of both sides of your mouth. How can you say you are waiting for a more “balanced view”, which includes of all people Bush himself, who is so delusional that he actually thinks people will look back on this war as a good thing. Tell that to the thousands of dead kids and their families. I guess you’re going by the Fox News definition of “balanced”. It will also be a sad day for you when those other “intelligence advisors” come out and reaffirm what we have all known. Bush was totally clueless to any national security threats or issues, had no post-war plans (which is the main reason the post invasion occupation has mired us in such a costly, lengthy and deadly mess), is economically challenged, and completely inept at handling domestic issues (as evidenced by Katrina). When all of these other views you’re waiting for finally come out, and to your utter amazement confirm the facts, will you continue to look for more balanced views until there is no one left standing on your side, or will you wake up and accept that you have been wrong all this time.
By peter
May 29, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
I like the part Bush was upset that the WAR might cost $100 to $200 Billion dollars, and that was told to the Press.
Well $600 million later, the WAR has NOT been won, and the country well, we all see what is happening here.
I watched Charlie Wilson’s War last night, too bad someone didn’t have the guts to go after Bin Laden.
But hey, we can be conned into thinking we are safer now.
Someone may believe that!
I think Jim is “Right”, we shall see what others write about King George, and who knows there may be someone with a “Positive” Spin.
But the Bush family…..WOW….Business as usual, thank you George JR!
By Dave53
May 29, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
Here we are again at the end of another two term presidency, and again we can’t stand the sight of seeing the two-termer say anything we haven’t heard a thousand times before. It seems by the 5th year or so, we want them out whoever they are. At least Bill left with a good economy and no war, but then, 9-11 didn’t happen on “his watch”. Bush, while a straight shooter and having only the best in mind for his country, was malable to the point of lunacy, and this memoir by a long-standing friend and ally only reinforces it. Cheney, Rumsfeld and company sold him a bill of goods, put together long before Bush became president, and 9-11 provided the excuse for them to act. We need a third party pronto.
By @@
May 29, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
The anti-war left will feel vindicated
It’ll be a short-lived vindication Jim. The leftists need government conspiracies in order to wage the wars THEY so love.
He was eased out earlier than he’d planned to leave
Not early enough in my opinion. Everytime there was a press conference, I would think to myself…
“This McClellan guy sux…I mean really sux - surely the WH could have done better!”
I found McClellan as frustrating in his abilities, as I find Obama today.
If Bush is guilty of anything, it’s loyalty to a friend.
By You're the true DONKEY
May 29, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
By Chadworth
Chadworth, you are blind, but unfortunately you may be right. The Dems will take the fall by HAVING to raise taxes to try to fix the mess your incompetent congress and president have put us into. Economics can be simple. I’ll speak slow for you. We are spending billions more than we are bringing in. Is that how your finances work? How long could your family survive on a plan like this?
And you are also correct that the 70-80% is not just Bush haters. It is also the people who are supposed to be his most loyal supporters. When you lose that base what have you got? Nothing. The rest of the party try’s to distance themselves now as election approaches, but we all know you and them would, and will, continue in the same direction as Bush. Your party will lose because America is not as blind you think. We can see your party for what it is and that it is a complete continuation of the same failed policies and lies.
By eroc
May 29, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
Yea, this book was a REAL SHOCKER!!! LOL!!! What is shocking is that this guy actually wrote it, not that any of it is true (which it most certainly is!!) I cannot believe people still defend this group of people that have THROWN our country into a downward spiral. It makes you wonder what else these people will support blindly……my guess would be ANYTHING.
By To Chadworth
May 29, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
By Chadworth
Chadworth, you are blind, but unfortunately you may be right. The Dems will take the fall by HAVING to raise taxes to try to fix the mess your incompetent congress and president have put us into. Economics can be simple. I’ll speak slow for you. We are spending billions more than we are bringing in. Is that how your finances work? How long could your family survive on a plan like this?
And you are also correct that the 70-80% is not just Bush haters. It is also the people who are supposed to be his most loyal supporters. When you lose that base what have you got? Nothing. The rest of the party try’s to distance themselves now as election approaches, but we all know you and them would, and will, continue in the same direction as Bush. Your party will lose because America is not as blind you think. We can see your party for what it is and that it is a complete continuation of the same failed policies and lies.
By Frankly, my dear....
May 29, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
Another thing that that isn’t so surprising is that Mr. Wooten soundly rejects Mr. McClellan’s book. Would any of us have expected anything less from Mr. Wooten today?
By Southern Democrat
May 29, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
It’s quite humorous:
The stance that Mr. Wooten, Chadworth, and others are taking reminds me of the Iraqi Foreign Minister’s “press conferences” in Baghdad explaining how the Iraqi forces were beating back the Coalition invaders.
By Hey Chad
May 29, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
Chadsworth,
“If said voters wanted to put Liberals and Democrats in office, they would have voted as such.”
Last I heard Congress is Democratically controlled by people who voted them there.
By Dannick
May 29, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
There is very little one can add about the Scott McClellan book. I therefore leave you with another installment of Redneckism on Parade:
A convicted felon who became a motivational speaker — and used his life experiences to warn teens about the dangers of drugs and crime — is accused of going on a bender, threatening to kill his girlfriend and her son, and smashing a former prison buddy in the face with a statue of John Wayne.
Authorities said Russell Simon Jr. was jailed on attempted murder charges after the events following his relapse into drugs and booze. According to a criminal complaint, a night of drinking with the prison buddy on May 15 led to Simon stripping off his clothes, fighting with the friend and firing shots at him and Simon’s girlfriend.
At one point Simon hit the man in the face with the John Wayne statue, according to the complaint.
The complaint says Simon forced his girlfriend to perform oral sex on him while he had his gun nearby and threatened to kill her and her 9-year-old son. At least six shots were fired, one grazing the woman’s arm, the complaint said.
County attorney Jeff Edblad said last week that tests show Simon had cocaine, THC and methamphetamine in his system.
“We’re very fortunate that we’re not dealing with a multiple homicide case,” Edblad said.
The 45-year-old Simon, who enlisted a frank, tough-guy approach in his speeches to students around the country, is in custody on $1 million bail. He’s charged with nine counts, including attempted murder, criminal sexual conduct and assault with a dangerous weapon. He was previously in prison for assault.
From jail, Simon referred questions to his attorney, Barry Voss, who didn’t return messages from The Associated Press.
Simon’s Web site says he’s “a dynamic speaker who talks to over 250,000 teens and parents throughout the U.S. each year on being set free from cycles of drug/alcohol abuse, addiction, and violence.”
Some counselors and school administrators agreed, calling Simon a charismatic figure who connected with audiences by talking about how alcohol affected his home life, the poor decisions he made, and the dangers of prison. His program showed how he beat his demons to succeed.
Edblad said that because a child was in the house during the ordeal, prosecutors will ask for stiffer penalties against Simon if he’s convicted. Bail was kept at $1 million because Simon made threatening phone calls from the jail to his former wife, authorities said.
Police are also investigating possible fraud or identity theft because Simon had four credit cards belonging to someone else.
“It sounds like Russell ended up going back into drugs, and it leads you down that kind of path where you do things that you normally wouldn’t do. He’s going to end up right back where he started,” said Vicki Langemo, a prevention counselor at a suburban high school who thought highly of Simon after hearing him speak years ago.
While saying she doesn’t know if the allegations are true, Langemo added: “I’m just very sad to hear that those are the choices he made.”
By WFC
May 29, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
Study a little history, guys.
IRAQ is NOT a nation in the commonly accepted sense of the word. It was arbitrarily created after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire for the convenience of the governing western powers.
The Sunni/Shia split is fundammental to the Islamic world and has existed for over 1200 years. It’s not going away and cannot be solved by western style ballot box democracy.
IRAQ will NOT morph into a mini-USA even if American troops occupy for 100 years.
It’s all about CULTURE, dudes, and we didn’t understand that in Vietnam either.
Didn’t we learn ANYTHING from propping up the Shah in Iran for 25 years?
By jbmlaw
May 29, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
Dear Dirty @ 9:12, “I hate to remind you CHADWORTH that the republicans controlled the congress for 6 of the last 7 1/2 years.” That would be true if you do not consider the Senate part of Congress. I understand that many use “Congress” as a short-hand for the House of Representatives and exclude the Senate. The most offensive of the leftist legislation enacted during the Bush administration was passed when the Democrats controlled the Senate. I do not absolve republican earmarkers by that statement. 2001-2003 and 2007-date is also the time when the administration’s hands were tied in its inability to get its nominees approved to the courts and even to the executive branch. The leftist senate gets most of the blame from me, for both positive sins of spending and passive sins of obstruction. Had the leftist senate rubber-stamped the Bush nominees, your argument would have a basis. As to the failure to use the veto, I agree that it takes a strong executive to veto spending bills. Reagan was such an executive, and was willing to shut down the government. You would not seriously argue that Obama is a spending-cutter who would veto excessive spending, so I suppose you would concede the problem will remain, unless it worsens, in the Obama administration.
Dear George @ 9:15, as should anti-Semites. You may enjoy Chairman Ann’s essay today.
Dear True Donkey @ 9:54, why do democrats always reject spending cuts – reducing the government take – instead of demanding tax increases? Rational people understand that nonmilitary government spending is the problem with government, not inadequate sources of funds. Tax revenues are at an all-time high, and increased every year but one (when they were flat) during the Bush administration. Your “Vietnam” reference is apt, for the cultural divide in the US.
By jbmlaw
May 29, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
Dear Donkey @ 9:54, apologies for confusion, my appended “Vietnam” note was intended for my epistle to WFC.
By Just Nasty and Mean
May 29, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
Well, good morning Jim.
What everybody seems to forget is that there is a money motive to writing tell-all books. If McClellan didn’t have some juicy tidbits to slam Bush, how many books would he sell?
Don’t underestimate the publisher’s motives and desire to pump up sales by overstating or overemphasizing insignificant elements to MAKE MONEY
People, just remember—Washington is rife with snakes that will do (and write) ANYTHING for a book.
By Dusty
May 29, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this
Sorry, Jim Wooten. I know you had to do it. McClellan’s book is the current dispensing “dust devil” of the day. But wasting even two minutes of your time on this “confession”, given under the torture of big bucks, is still too much time for nothing
Let those fools who have forgotten 9/11, terrorist intentions, Middle East support for them,and intelligence reports from major countries, spend their hard earned money for tripe from a disgruntled press secretary.
Let them sit in the comfort of a safe America and give their two cents worth of political hate about Bush. Let the nerds pontificate on the necessity of their misantropic mewlings of retreat in a dangerous world. Their thoughts are infantile!!
Should I ever receive a gift copy of McClellan’s book, I shall reward the dust bins of GoodWill with an unopened volume. Perhaps they have a buyer of junk books for the value of their paper pulp, the only value in McClellan’s “confessions of a dubious defiler for dough”.
Obviously,even the ambiguous can write in America. That does not mean I am going to buy or read their twisted retreat from the truth.
By TIME FOR ISRAEL TO BOMB IRAN AND SAN FRAN SICKO
May 29, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
Watching the frantic, worthless inbred leftist human scum on here puking up their anally obsessive daily Bush derangement bollocks is enormously amusing. Such free entertainment as this cretinously predicktable vapid surrender monkey cyber vomit mountain on here sure does tickle one’s ribs real nice and easy like. You know, just like in any old Hussein Obama defeatist cliche ridden haughty puke these abortion bucket escapee leftists are going to pound out their witless psychotic Bush hate bile like spittle splattered cut and run linguine spined lemmings slithering toward oblivion in puff adder paradise.
Feeding such hate pig maggot brained liberal scum to a bunch of anorexic sharks in FL would be a good first step, but then just imagine the eye popping apoplectic outrage from the rabid nutters at PETA and various other screeching self appointed eco whacko Hitlers. All that noxious toxic carbon stinking methane oozing from the party of hate apologists would need a billion trees planting -just to offset one hour of sick hate America treachery on the bankrupt, utterly despised, puss filled excuse for the official Nu Yawwwwk City Quisling Tokyo Rose Lord Haw Haw Soros funded radio station Dead Air AmeriKa.
The USAF hilariously managed to flatten the genocidal commie chinkie embassy in Jugoslavia under the Arkansas rapist’s “watch”. Why not have a similar superbly serendipitous outcome for the perfidious hectoringfeminazibulldykes of Code PinKKKo and the treasonous self abusing rancid maggots at moveyourbowels.org.
Just a thought like …
By True Donkey
May 29, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
To By jbmlaw,
I’m not sure of a vietnam reference in my statement, but if you want to be a typical republican and say something is there when it is not, go ahead. I guess it could be worse, you could have said I had WMD’s.
Rational people do not understand nonmilitary spending is the problem, we democrats understand that nonmilitary spending is the most important spending needed. While your party continues to cut much needed social programs, like afterschool programs, you at the same time provide huge tax incentives to big oil and big business. The same people who have been in the right pocket of your party the whole time.
Don’t sit there and say tax revenues are at an all time high without saying that spending is also at an all time high, and as pointed out earlier, you can’t spend more than you bring in and expect to be economically sound. So instead of blowing smoke up everyone’s a$$, why don’t you tell us how we can survive like that?
By Nativebird
May 29, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
This is not a good time to be naive, or deceptive, secretive, self-serving, rhetorical, non-diplomatic, or in otherwords: REPUBLICAN. Now I am not saying that all Republicans act that way, but I judge people by what they do and not what comes out of their mouth.
Scott was sold on the idea that he could help make this nation better under Bush. He served him proudly in Texas. What he learned as he came to work everyday was the reality of the agenda. The agenda put before even him (meaning Bush, Rove, Cheney, Daddie Bush, Rummy, & sometimes Rice created and crafted direction for this country that met their needs and sold it to their staff and this country as something else) was an agenda that he truly believed in at the time. His previous loyalty to Bush is well documented, so I believe him when he says that it was his Christianity, and over all this is the right thing to do. Tell the truth so that those who want change, real change may arm themselves with the truth instead of propaganda and rhetoric.
Before I go a couple of things for those on the fence. If you simply cannot get past differences in people and look to how we can all live together, than you will continue to be left behind by those who want to live together peacefully, respectfully, and with equality for all. The Democratic Agenda is not the scary scenario that some above this writing have written. It will go back to the taxation of the Clinton era and will usher in some of the good changes that even some republicans (but mostly bipartisan legislation) have made to the tax code. IE- Elimination of certain estate taxes, etc. The goal is “fair” taxation, not skewed toward any income status, or connected individuals or corporations. Every must pay their fair share based on income, it’s that simple! TAXES Ok, the race issue. No Barak is not just gonna do stuff just for Black people or just minorities. Get this, he is HALF WHITE! He has a white grandmother, a white sister, and many white relatives. So, that qualifies him to speak for everyone, again he would not push legislation that would intentionally harm any race because of his own heritage. RACE Barak will surround himself with educated, different voices. With these differing opinions, he will make very sound, and therefore educated decisions. Unlike, the Bush mind that Scott has decribed as deciding what he wants to do, convincing himself of it, then convincing his people of it by force (no differing opinion allowed)! Under Presidant Obama, we will restore our credibility, security (other nations will work with us which will strengthen our striking capacity around the world and our intelligence), and once again make this country a country that all of the world look up to and want to immulate. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THAT!! LET’S BRING IT BACK. VOTE OBAMA, VOTE DEMOCRAT, BUT MOSTLY SEARCH YOUR HEART LIKE SCOTT DID AND FEEL HOW WHAT YOU DO COULD HELP MANY PEOPLE INCLUDING YOURSELF AT HOME AND AROUND THE WORLD. VOTE FOR CHANGE.
By jbmlaw
May 29, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals – if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to ensure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path. – RR, 1975, Reason magazine, quoted in WSJ today, p A-17.
By Lauren
May 29, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
Chadworth, interesting take. The GOP is only responsible insofar as they did not stop the Dems from ruining this country. Really? The GOP controlled everything up until two years ago and you still don’t have the balls to lay the blame where it should be. Just like the rest of your party, you are always making excuses instead of being honest. Well, wake up because the rest of this country is laying the blame squarely on the doorstep of your party and we are not amused or fooled by you stupid kool-aid drinkers trying to blame this debacle on us. It won’t work. But keep talking, you are amusing in your denial.
By Nativebird
May 29, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
This is not a good time to be naive, or deceptive, secretive, self-serving, rhetorical, non-diplomatic, or in otherwords: REPUBLICAN. Now I am not saying that all Republicans act that way, but I judge people by what they do and not what comes out of their mouth.
Scott was sold on the idea that he could help make this nation better under Bush. He served him proudly in Texas. What he learned as he came to work everyday was the reality of the agenda. The agenda put before even him (meaning Bush, Rove, Cheney, Daddie Bush, Rummy, & sometimes Rice created and crafted direction for this country that met their needs and sold it to their staff and this country as something else) was an agenda that he truly believed in at the time. His previous loyalty to Bush is well documented, so I believe him when he says that it was his Christianity, and over all this is the right thing to do. Tell the truth so that those who want change, real change may arm themselves with the truth instead of propaganda and rhetoric.
Before I go a couple of things for those on the fence. If you simply cannot get past differences in people and look to how we can all live together, than you will continue to be left behind by those who want to live together peacefully, respectfully, and with equality for all. The Democratic Agenda is not the scary scenario that some above this writing have written. It will go back to the taxation of the Clinton era and will usher in some of the good changes that even some republicans (but mostly bipartisan legislation) have made to the tax code. IE- Elimination of certain estate taxes, etc. The goal is “fair” taxation, not skewed toward any income status, or connected individuals or corporations. Every must pay their fair share based on income, it’s that simple! TAXES Ok, the race issue. No Barak is not just gonna do stuff just for Black people or just minorities. Get this, he is HALF WHITE! He has a white grandmother, a white sister, and many white relatives. So, that qualifies him to speak for everyone, again he would not push legislation that would intentionally harm any race because of his own heritage. RACE Barak will surround himself with educated, different voices. With these differing opinions, he will make very sound, and therefore educated decisions. Unlike, the Bush mind that Scott has decribed as deciding what he wants to do, convincing himself of it, then convincing his people of it by force (no differing opinion allowed)! Under Presidant Obama, we will restore our credibility, security (other nations will work with us which will strengthen our striking capacity around the world and our intelligence), and once again make this country a country that all of the world look up to and want to immulate. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THAT!! LET’S BRING IT BACK. VOTE OBAMA, VOTE DEMOCRAT, BUT MOSTLY SEARCH YOUR HEART LIKE SCOTT DID AND FEEL HOW WHAT YOU DO COULD HELP MANY PEOPLE INCLUDING YOURSELF AT HOME AND AROUND THE WORLD. VOTE FOR CHANGE.
By Nativebird
May 29, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
This is not a good time to be naive, or deceptive, secretive, self-serving, rhetorical, non-diplomatic, or in otherwords: REPUBLICAN. Now I am not saying that all Republicans act that way, but I judge people by what they do and not what comes out of their mouth.
Scott was sold on the idea that he could help make this nation better under Bush. He served him proudly in Texas. What he learned as he came to work everyday was the reality of the agenda. The agenda put before even him (meaning Bush, Rove, Cheney, Daddie Bush, Rummy, & sometimes Rice created and crafted direction for this country that met their needs and sold it to their staff and this country as something else) was an agenda that he truly believed in at the time. His previous loyalty to Bush is well documented, so I believe him when he says that it was his Christianity, and over all this is the right thing to do. Tell the truth so that those who want change, real change may arm themselves with the truth instead of propaganda and rhetoric.
Before I go a couple of things for those on the fence. If you simply cannot get past differences in people and look to how we can all live together, than you will continue to be left behind by those who want to live together peacefully, respectfully, and with equality for all. The Democratic Agenda is not the scary scenario that some above this writing have written. It will go back to the taxation of the Clinton era and will usher in some of the good changes that even some republicans (but mostly bipartisan legislation) have made to the tax code. IE- Elimination of certain estate taxes, etc. The goal is “fair” taxation, not skewed toward any income status, or connected individuals or corporations. Every must pay their fair share based on income, it’s that simple! TAXES Ok, the race issue. No Barak is not just gonna do stuff just for Black people or just minorities. Get this, he is HALF WHITE! He has a white grandmother, a white sister, and many white relatives. So, that qualifies him to speak for everyone, again he would not push legislation that would intentionally harm any race because of his own heritage. RACE Barak will surround himself with educated, different voices. With these differing opinions, he will make very sound, and therefore educated decisions. Unlike, the Bush mind that Scott has decribed as deciding what he wants to do, convincing himself of it, then convincing his people of it by force (no differing opinion allowed)! Under Presidant Obama, we will restore our credibility, security (other nations will work with us which will strengthen our striking capacity around the world and our intelligence), and once again make this country a country that all of the world look up to and want to immulate. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THAT!! LET’S BRING IT BACK. VOTE OBAMA, VOTE DEMOCRAT, BUT MOSTLY SEARCH YOUR HEART LIKE SCOTT DID AND FEEL HOW WHAT YOU DO COULD HELP MANY PEOPLE INCLUDING YOURSELF AT HOME AND AROUND THE WORLD. VOTE FOR CHANGE.
By Sigh...
May 29, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
McClellan’s disgust at this administration’s overuse of campaign tactics is interesting. Scott’s so upset by all he saw that he must now tell us what happened - in the middle of a campaign year when political books sell best. 80% of the public is aware that this administration has done very stupid things, but McClellan’s book doesn’t seem to raise any new issues on that front.
What does this book do? It reminds me that I’m tired of both sides looking to either burn or bronze our politicians. McClellan is pandering to that mentality. Is he telling the truth? I’m sure he is, but to what degree, we’ll never know. And bickering about that percentage of truth is a futile process. As is calling names on a faceless blog.
Bush is out of office in less than 8 months. He certainly hasn’t been a savior, but neither is he a criminal. And blogging the same trite phrases over and over won’t make either opinion so. Except in your head. Jeez, isn’t anyone tired of repeating the same drivel about Bush - pro and con? Because some of us are tired of hearing it.
McClellan’s playing the public like a campaign fiddle. You hear the music and are compelled to follow it’s siren song. Sorry for the mix in metaphors.
By George Washington
May 29, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
woodenhead is irrevelent…
By jbmlaw
May 29, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
Dear Donkey @ 10:50, apologies for confusion, my appended “Vietnam” note was intended for an inadvertently-deleted epistle to WFC. “we democrats understand that nonmilitary spending is the most important spending needed.” I don’t suppose there is any chance that your standard-bearer will run a campaign based on spending increases? I think we would agree that would be political suicide.
Dear WFC @ 10:20, the United States and Switzerland were not nations in the commonly accepted use of the term at their formations. That does not preclude cohesion, especially if there are either common interests or common enemies for all factions. All factions of Iraq now see benefit from US presence; all factions of Iraq are now united in opposition to both Shia and Sunni terrorism, most of which originates outside the borders of Iraq. All factions of Iraq stand to benefit from pooling of economic resources, to re-establish the Iraqi oil industry. I agree that the split between Shia and Sunni is almost as profound as the antagonism conservatives feel for the leftist tax-thieves who would control our government. I think you are right that Iraq will not morph into a mini-USA – I suspect it will do better, and evolve more like a Switzerland, which hangs together despite a sharp and historically-antagonistic religious split. Your “Vietnam” reference is apt, for the cultural divide in the US.
By Lauren
May 29, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this
Meanwhile McCain holds a fundraiser last night and is so ashamed of his keynote speaker that he bans cameras from the event. Who was his speaker? George W. Bush! McCain, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t try to distance yourself from Bush on one hand and declare yourself the candidate of change and then on the other hand snuggle up to the man and beg for money. What a hypocrite! But I expect nothing less from him. Unscrupulous w*******!
By Blind Homer
May 29, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
Wooten - This administration has been shocking to many of us for years, but you can only consider this a revelation if you’ve had your head up….. the last 5 years. All the known facts support “the revelation”. Those are the Administration told us several different things from mushtroom clouds and WMD to deposing Saddam and freeing the Iraqi people, to making Iraq a stable democracy. It should have been painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain that when one lie became implausible (like when the intelligence was reported to be faulty and there still haven’t been any WMD discovered) they simply changed the lie.
By Abomi Nation
May 29, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw, your routine is becoming funnier every day. “The socialists are coming the socialists are coming.” “The socialist Dems are causing the sky to fall.” “The socialist Dems ruined the Senate.”
In November of 2003 42 Republican Senators, joined by only 11 Democrats and 1 independent passed the biggest socialist program to be enacted in the US since the FDR years. Medicare Plan D.
This plan does not allow price negotiations. The Veterans Administration, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices, pays 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.
This plan was signed by Republican President George W Bush.
Your rhetoric is getting old, you need to come up with a different line.
By Howard
May 29, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
You had to work pretty hard to find your “spin” on this one. Let’s see… Weapons of Mass Destruction, nope, didn’t exist…greeted as liberators, nope, didn’t happen…war to be short and not too expensive, wrong again…final throes…well, not yet…thinking right…not so much…
By jbmlaw
May 29, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
Dear TFTT @ 10:47, I wish I had written your second paragraph. Funny, great imagery.
Dear Lauren @ 11:04, “The GOP controlled everything up until two years ago and you still don’t have the balls to lay the blame where it should be. Just like the rest of your party, you are always making excuses instead of being honest.” That would be true if you do not consider the Senate part of Everything. The most offensive of the leftist legislation enacted during the Bush administration was passed when the Democrats controlled the Senate. I do not absolve republican earmarkers by that statement. 2001-2003 and 2007-date is also the time when the administration’s hands were tied in its inability to get its nominees approved to the courts and even to the executive branch. The leftist senate gets most of the blame from me, for both positive sins of spending and passive sins of obstruction. Had the leftist senate rubber-stamped the Bush nominees, your argument would have a basis. As to the failure to use the veto, I agree that it takes a strong executive to veto spending bills. Reagan was such an executive, and was willing to shut down the government. You would not seriously argue that Obama is a spending-cutter who would veto excessive spending, so I suppose you would concede the problem will remain, unless it worsens, in the Obama administration.
By Dusty
May 29, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this
Native Bird,@11:05
I don’t vote for “small change”. You don’t get your money’s worth.
jbmlaw@11:04
So.. Libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path. Why don’t you join us Republicans? We are conservative with only a few of those “shades” you mentioned. We certainly are not as shady as Bob Barr.
By jbmlaw
May 29, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
Dear Abomi @ 11:18, I charge you with deception. The democrats (who opposed the horrendous spending of the prescription plan supported by republicans) opposed, not because they thought the plan too large and restrictive, but because it was not big enough and restrictive enough. However, if you wish to launch a movement to repeal the act, I will support you and I will retract my charge.
By jbmlaw
May 29, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Dusty @ 11:26, I desperately wish the Republicans were conservative. I don’t think they have been since Newt left. Exhibit #1: Captain Queeg. Exhibit #2 - Saxbe. Exhibit #3 - Johnny.
By LB
May 29, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this
I don’t know why, but I’m still amazed, and even saddened, how these right-wingers hold on to their almighty, all-knowing, altruistic, almost leader. It’s like no matter what truths are revealed, they will never waiver in their belief that this president is perfect in every way, speaks only the truth, and would follow him to hell if need be. And every time anyone says anything negative about him or the war, they cry like babies about being a traitor or unpatriotic or un-American. How arrogant, stupid, and short-sighted.
For the rest of us who can think for themselves, just remember these Bush-whacko’s are weak-minded and should be pitied. McClellan’s book is just proof of what we intellects have known since this administration began.
By Abomi Nation
May 29, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
Dusty, if you have not figured this out yet, sorry, you are probably just too dense.
Libertarians don’t kiss George W Bush’s azz everyday like jbmlaw. They don’t cheer the war. They don’t cheer his spending. They don’t cheer his debt. In fact most all Libertarians despise Bush just about as much as the Democrats.
jbmlaw is no Libertarian. Bush cheerleader yes. Republican cheerleader yes.
By ncgreybr
May 29, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this
Don’t you just love it when you’re sitting back and watching Wooten try to spin a column.
Can’t wait to see Condi Rice’s spokesman write a book on how she’s covered up her incompetent and failed behaviour.
By Johnny Neptune
May 29, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
“I’ll wait for a more balanced view — and the memoirs of the President and those who were actually in the meetings and heard the intelligence.”
The jokes keep writing themselves.
By Abomi Nation
May 29, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
Yea right jbmlaw @11:29. Just like the Dems opposed the Stevens highway bill because it didn’t include 2 bridges to nowhere.
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
May 29, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
Jbm…
Since Newt left? You mean since he resigned in disgrace after doing nothing that he promised. Just a bunch of hot air:
REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives. That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.
This year’s election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.
Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.” To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.
On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:
FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress; SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse; THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third; FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs; FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee; SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public; SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase; EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.
By Jim Woodden
May 29, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
All the exes who have written books are liars except Jim,jbmlaw and the other righties and Bush azzwipers on Jim’s blog. And Bush’s ratings are in the toilet…go figure…
By AmVet
May 29, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this
Indicative of the depths to which the GOP has sunk, this book is barely noteworthy.
Are we now to be aghast at a President and administration built upon duplicity, self-interests and ineptitude?
Except for the disappearing neo-cons in the faithful base that memo was released a LONG time ago.
And Mr. Wooten, while earning kudos for not simply avoiding the subject altogether, does put his unique “journalistic” spin on the matter, nonetheless doesn’t he?
Two words especially struck me in that last paragraph - disloyalty and pay-grade.
Ah yes, loyalty or the lack thereof. But to whom? Or better yet to what?
Perhaps he used that word in error and actually meant fealty.
In much of this “new” GOP, that certainly usurps loyalty to the nation.
(In a vulgar paraphrasing of Lincoln, the GOP’s mantra is “Party First, Party Last, Party Always”)
And then true to form out comes the “conservatives” disdain for the little guy. Or more succinctly - elitism.
Trust me, it did not take yet another damning book for the vast percentage of Americans to see that this worst ever administration is one giant and deadly disaster.
01-20-09 The End of an Error
By AmVet
May 29, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this
Abomi Nation at 11:36, this “identity crisis” by the people who brought us every demented slogan, banner and label imaginable is quite ironic.
Fiercely proud of the term conservative, nary a one could even explain what it was or of what components comprised it in ANY detail. Nor how the GOP of the past thirty years was not very representative of it. I tried for months to get some answers. Chirp, chirp, chirp. Ooops!
So instead, for a long time they could always just fall back on the epithet “liberal”.
But alas, the meaningless and inaccurate labels and poisonous diatribes had no chance in the long run. Ask Newt. Or if he was still alive, Ronnie.
The fact is, the term liberal has no sting left whatsoever. And honestly it never had much. Particularly as spoken by a group who has no earthly idea what THEY were.
This is and always has been a liberal country. For good and bad.
The Bible thumpers and morality legislators hate it, but TFB.
That ain’t ever gonna change…
By Dusty
May 29, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this
Abominable National @11:36
Einstein, I sure figured you out. To use your vulgarities:
Republicans don’t kiss Osama ben laden’s azz every day like lefties (That’s you.).
Republicans are not too afraid to fight terrorists.
Republicans are smart enough to know that a strong military has to be supplied.
Republicans know that low taxes encourage the economy so they keep them LOW.
You, dingbat, are not a true Libertarian, just a disgruntled far left lib who will waste your vote for the Libertarian farce you proclaim.
jbmlaw on the other hand can THINK. That is why I have hope for him. You, I leave in the political gutter as hopeless for yourself and the nation.
By Dennis
May 29, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten writes, “If marketing to the American people a policy that the President believes is in the country’s best interest is a crime, we’d have to dig up and indict an awful lot former presidents.”
Is is a crime, Mr. Wooten, if it is a lie that gets American soldiers killed?
Is it a crime, Mr. Wooten, if those soldiers are killed more for the political ambitions of those presidents than for threats to the security of this country?
As to “a balanced view”, Mr. Wooten, we arent’ going to get it from the mainstream media.
Nor will we get it from you.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignroant one to deny it.
By Dusty
May 29, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this
Such originality! ..AmVet@12;00
every day..the same old song with the same old theme. tra la ..we lefties hate Bush and he’s no good and we are perfect and heaven is coming with the DEMOCRATS.. Such famous last words as we have experienced before. Need I mention the CLINTON CALAMITY? or wish for THE OBAMA DEMOLITION?
But your closing line is somewhat clever…The End of an Error. Let us hope the next line will not be The Surrender to Terror as directed by Obama.
By dirty harry
May 29, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this
By Dusty
May 29, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this
Dusty you say “Republicans don’t kiss Osama ben laden’s azz every day like lefties (That’s you.”).
Please help me here…Isn’t Bin Laden a Saudi? And isn’t the Bush family big time friends of the Saudi’s, and when Bin Laden was trapped at Tora Bora did not the president decide to instead divert attention to Iraq and let Bin Laden waltz away to his hidey hole?
I think you have the democrats and republicans mixed up in your metaphor!
You are such a blind obedient follower of the doctrine you can’t see the forest for the trees!
By Glenn
May 29, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
And for “credible second-guessers,” Mr. Wooten, “I’ll turn to somebody above the pay-grade of a” columnist for a Democrat newspaper. “The anti-war left feel vindicated” by McClellan’s book — or so you say — as evidenced by, say, yesterday morning’s meeting of the Journal-Constitution’s Editorial Board?
The fact remains that the book is ALSO scurrilous. In all likelihood it was written for Mr. McClellan by his lucrative publisher. It accuses White House staff of criminal conduct. Ka-ching.
As you and the Board know, the reason why former employees can cash-in with publishers by lending their legitimizing names to rank controversialism is because of your newspaper and the conglomerate that owns it. The publisher and ghost writers of Mr. McClellan’s book know that they have a free hand because of the expensive spadework done by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. It was your paper which established, in Richard Jewell v. Cox Enterprises (d.b.a. Atlanta Journal-Constitution), the right of anyone to print any damn thing calculated to break the heart and reputation of any person, provided the assassination takes place publicly and proudly.
Mr. McClellan’s book would not exist without the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, because without the legal fig-leaf your newspaper has offered the publishing world, the McClellan book would have been smothered in its crib.
By ghost rider
May 29, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this
By Dusty
May 29, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this
Such originality! ..AmVet@12;00
Too FUNNY! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Oh, Dusty if you only had a brain.
By swolf4810
May 29, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
Jim, You got your head WAY up your butt on this one!
By fairy god mother
May 29, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this
By Glenn
May 29, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
Glenn you write this “Mr. McClellan’s book would not exist without the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, because without the legal fig-leaf your newspaper has offered the publishing world, the McClellan book would have been smothered in its crib.
Are you snorting some of that stuff that GWB can’t recall snorting?
This book didn’t take off because of the AJC..The only place it’s not being reported is on Faux News!
It’s numero uno on Amazon…every major, and minor newspapers are carrying this story.
Now some fairy dust for you (if you know what I mean) and away I go
Plunk your magic twanger froggie!
By deegee
May 29, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this
Go ahead and shoot the messenger but the message rings true. Scott McClellan’s account is consistent with what others have said about the planning, or lack thereof, of the war in Iraq. The program “Frontline” produced an excellent 2-part series called “Bush’s War” that aired in March of this year, link below. You can watch the entire program online.
http://pbs.gen.in/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
By Redneck Convert
May 29, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
Well, after my chicken weenies I logged in to see jbmlaw and Sister Dusty done took out after this McClellan Trader.
That jbmlaw sure got a good racket going. He don’t want to get any blame so he says he’s a Libraritarian, not a Republican. But I never seen him go after anybody but the librul Democrats that he calls leftists. And when a Libraritarian starts running for President jbmlaw says he won’t vote for him.
Sister Dusty is a diffrent sort. I just hope My President don’t make a sudden stop. If he does her nose will get broke and messy.
By Shar
May 29, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this
No one, absolutely no one, can feel vindicated by the idea of our nation being “marketed” the radical policy change of pre-emptive war on the basis of whatever ‘positioning’ would be most palatable. The howling and name-calling, defensiveness and bitter schadenfreude between liberals and conservatives, on this blog and throughout the country, is even more destructive to the country than the war, economic irresponsibility and ineffective domestic policies that have characterized this Administration.
Mr. Wooten is right to question the critical recollections of a fired former staffer. He is wrong, however, to suggest that Mr. McClellan’s is the only such narrative that has come from the Bush White House, or that it is inconsistent with the accounts of others who, initially highly loyal to the President, came to question and finally disown the policies he and the small group of key advisors he listened to (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and their direct minions such as Addington, Libby and select hawks at DOD) implemented.
People such as former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel Jack Goldsmith, former deputy (and acting) attorney general John Comey, highly regarded professionally and as Party loyalists, have all either written or testified about an isolated Administration that characteristically decided on a course and subsequently involved its subject area experts only to provide a covering rationale. O’Neill wrote of being in meetings in January and February of 2001 when the President was trying to find a way to invade Iraq; the decision had already been made. O’Neill provided agendae and briefing memos to support his statements.
The point, besides callling Mr. Wooten to task for suggesting that a person who makes more money is somehow more credible, is that waiting for “a more balanced view” - especially when he defines that as the President’s own - is sometimes an unaffordable luxury. If Mr. McClellan’s account was unique in its revelations, if it contradicted the majority of other published insider accounts, if it flew in the face of the on-the-ground evidence of such things as lack of WMD’s, secret directives, debunked “spin”, then his caution in avoiding a rush to judgement would be commendable. This is not the case. At some point, a stubborn insistence on faith in the President in the face of the mounting and consistent evidence of ineptitude at best, malfeasance at worst, does nothing but deepen divisions and provide cover for further damage.
Glenn @ 12:46, the libel laws cover unfounded accusations and rank, profiteering lies. You say the book (which isn’t even out until Tuesday, although I hear that advance copies are available - did you get one?) is “scurrilous” and immediately follow up with an unfounded and insulting accusation of your own, “In all likelihood it was written for Mr. McClellan by his lucrative publisher.” Remember your excellent metaphor regarding the label/bottle and the content?
By Lauren
May 29, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this
JMBLAW, you have your history wrong. The Democrats lost control of the Senate in 1994 and did not get it back until 2006 and that was only by one seat. So we have controlled both houses of Congress for about a year and a half and not with enough votes to override a veto from President Dummy. So blame us all you want to but we have not been at the controls for most of the Bush administration— REPUBLICANS HAVE! And they are the ones who have screwed this nation up royally!
By peter
May 29, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this
Well there goes Dusty and the Wrongs again trying to say 911, and the Iraq WAR had something in common.
Come on Dusty why didn’t we go after Bin Laden?
By jbmlaw
May 29, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
Dear Lauren @ 2:08, you err. You forgot that before the Senate sat in 2001, the recently-elected Vermont Republican renounced his party membership, and sat with the Democrats as an independent. Surely you do not forget that the Senate majority leader 2001-2003 was Tom Daschle, who was defeated by Iowans as retribution for his obstructionist tactics. Your apology is accepted.
By Glenn
May 29, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this
Shar,
I appreciate your observations as always, but the libel laws did “cover”—-meaning that they didn’t cover, or vindicate—-the transgressions of which you speak until the AJC decided to do whatever it took to exonerate itself for its stunningly irresponsible destruction of Richard Jewell. Now, anything goes, and Cox and the AJC are on every salacious publisher’s mind in the form of a court case, Jewell v. Cox, which is universally recognized as a get-out-of-jail-free card for publishers who would say any damned thing they want about anyone at all—-no matter how anonymous the person might have been before the fact. That case was nothing less than the death knell of the erstwhile “Press”, which consequently has disolved into what can only be called “the Media”. Because the U.S. Constitution contemplates a “Press”, but not the mere “Media”, the Jewell case[s] effectively moots your and my constitutional protection against Press abuses. That’s the legacy of the once-great AJC’s ownership by Cox Enterprises.
My accusation, as you call it, is based on book excerpts released by the publisher to promote the book’s sales. I stand by my “accusation”, and will bolster it until you are satisfied that I’m not acting irresponsibly.
By jbmlaw
May 29, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this
I realize this is mere horse-race material, but our leftists have been uncharacteristically quiet about Bob Novak’s electoral map. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26723
By jm
May 29, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw@1:52 - Tom Daschle is from South Dakota, Tom Harkin is Iowa (and he is still in the Senate).
By Devastator
May 29, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this
Right now you have a unique opportunity to go head-to-head with George W. Bush.
This week, John McCain and George Bush gathered behind closed doors, away from the cameras, to raise money for McCain’s campaign.
McCain used Bush to raise a reported $3.5 million from a group of about 500 Republican contributors.
That’s a lot of money that will undoubtedly be used to attack us and make the case to continue George Bush’s failed policies.
But I have an idea about how we can match it. And we don’t need George Bush.
Right now, you can be the reason that someone decides to take the leap and own a piece of this campaign. If you make a donation today, your gift will match their first donation and double their impact.
You’ll see the name and hometown of the person you inspired to give. And you can even choose to exchange a personal note about why you’ve decided to support a different kind of politics.
Your past support has helped us grow this movement. Please make another donation and double your impact.
Your donation of $25 will equal $50 for our cause. Make a matching donation now:
https://donate.barackobama.com/promise
As the presumptive nominee of his party, John McCain has had a three-month head start to build his campaign. In that time, he’s made his fundraising strategy clear.
In the words of one reporter, the gala fundraiser with Bush was “part of McCain’s delicate effort to find the balance between embracing an unpopular president and taking advantage of his huge continuing draw with well-heeled Republicans.”
We’ll see more of this dance in the weeks and months ahead, but we already know the steps.
As we prepare to take on John McCain, now is our first chance to show that a grassroots movement of people giving only what they can afford can go toe-to-toe with the Bush-McCain fundraising machine.
And with the last three contests of the Democratic primary coming up in the next five days, the resources we’re building right now are an urgent necessity.
Help build our movement by making a matching donation today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/promise
John McCain can run from the cameras, but he can’t hide from the fact that he’s aiming to continue George Bush’s policies for a disastrous third term.
Let’s show that we’re ready to take him on.
Thank you,
Barack
By dirty harry
May 29, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this
By jbmlaw
May 29, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this
Bob Novak’s electoral map? You mean the traitor Bob Novak who outed Valerie Plame in his news article after being fed the info by Libby?
Who cares about Bob Novak’s electoral map…Novak is nothing but a right wing hack!
I thought you were a libretarian? Where is Bob Barr on that map?
By Dusty
May 29, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this
Dear Ghost Rider,
Is that the best you can do? If Dusty only had a brain?? Yeah, I know. Loyalty is just not your “thing”. You hate the sight of it. And PATRIOTISM?? Definitely not PC!
How about: If Ghost Rider only had a DIFFERENT refrain? Or AmWet?
By the way, enjoy your bit of paid disloyalty from McClellan. It won’t last long. Americans are not big on turncoats of any kind.
Dearest RedNeck Convertible@1:06
Obviously I do not keep my nose where you keep yours. I’m heads up, buddy! Amazing, though, that you can still drive in your position. But it does account for your outlook. You sound like a loony lout lollygagging, a lefty at that..
dirty harry @12:35
President Bush shakes hands with the leders of countries around the world. Standard procedure. Same with the Saudis. That does not make him a “blood brother” or whatever you are suggesting.
Osama wishes you to know that he has been hunted down since day one and is hiding in a cave in the highest mountains in the world. Not by choice but because AMERICANS ARE STILL AFTER HIM. They just don’t advertise their efforts ‘cause dingbats like you blabber too much.
Now turn in your water pistol abd badge. You are off the force.
By Copyleft
May 29, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
Dusty’s right; Americans are not big on turncoats, which is why the Bushies are losing support at every turn.
It’s also why the Repukes are sinking faster than a stone. We’ve had enough of their TREASON against everything America stands for. Hope you’re ready to join them on the trash heap, Dustmite! Along with all the other COWARDS and ANTI-AMERICAN FOOLS who still support the Bush Crime League.
By Devastator
May 29, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this
Only three contests remain in the Democratic primary.
Voters head to the polls in Puerto Rico on Sunday, followed by South Dakota and Montana on Tuesday.
After more than four dozen contests, Barack has won the most votes, the most delegates, and more than half the states. But we still need 48 delegates to secure the nomination.
We’re fighting in these critical states and making the preparations necessary to take on Senator McCain.
The financial demands on our immediate horizon are greater than at any point in the campaign so far. We face a critical reporting deadline on Saturday, and your support could make the difference before these last three contests.
You’ve gotten us this far. Please make another donation of $25 now to push us forward at this crucial moment:
https://donate.barackobama.com/threecontests
The primaries will be over on Tuesday, June 3rd, but there’s another important deadline coming up even sooner.
This Saturday at midnight is the financial reporting deadline for the month of May.
Give our campaign a crucial boost before these final contests, and send a message that we are ready to move to the next phase and compete against Senator McCain in all 50 states.
Now is the time to show your support — make an additional donation now:
https://donate.barackobama.com/threecontests
By Houckster
May 29, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this
I found it really interesting that Mr. Wooten has so little ability to draw effective distinctions that he fails to see the difference between FDR’s Lend Lease Act and Mr. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.
Mr. Roosevelt was responding to a real threat that no one in familiar with the history of the time denies. Mr. Roosevelt faced a huge problem. The nation was in the grip of a isolationist movement that was blocking the President from responding to the threat the Axis countries posed. Without that restraint, WWII would probably not have happened and would have been far less costly. It was the absence of active American participation in world affairs in the late thirties (actually beginning when Senate conservatives blocked the US from joining the League of Nations) and the corresponding delay in mobilizint our forces that encouraged the Nazis and the Japanese Imperialists to be aggressive believing they could take what they wanted and which lead to many thousands of deaths in our armed forces because they were not properly equipped to fight.
In contrast, Mr. Bush invaded Iraq when there was no demonstrable security threat to us and with an inadequately-sized military. Now Iraq is an American problem and not a world problem that will cost us well over a trillion dollars when all costs are finally tallied. And who can put a price on the 4000+ men and women that have been lost in a fight that might have been avoided.
If Mr. Wooten and those who still believe in Mr. Bush cannot see these differences, it is a terrible shame.
By Lauren
May 29, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this
So JMBLAW has plucked out a couple of random years during Bush’s administration when Dems controlled the Senate only and has blamed the whole debacle of a two-term presidential administration on the Democrats. That’s quite the logic acrobatics. So the Dems are to blame for the deregulation of lending practices which have led to the housing crisis? We are to blame for this war which is a quagmire that has ruined our reputation worldwide? We are to blame for the poor response of this administration to the Katrina disaster? We are to blame for making the oil companies rich beyond their wildest dreams while gas climbs beyond 4 bucks a gallon? We are to blame for scandal after scandal that has rocked this administration? Oh, yes, it’s all our fault because we did not approve a few judicial nominees. Yep, that is what caused all this mess. Give me a break!!!
By Dusty
May 29, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this
Good grief, Shar @:34
Did it take you that long to say we shouldn’t have any faith in the President? You shouldn’t have bothered. We already know you are Democrat who recognizes nothing that President Bush has done. You don’t support him, the war, low taxes or the safety this country enjoys.
By the way, did you still have “faith” in President Clinton when he disgraced our country with some of the most unethical behavior in the history of the American Presidency? Or is it just the political history of Republican presidents that bothers you?
By dirty harry
May 29, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this
DUSTY…You can’t be as stupid as you write: For instance your latest blog where you state “President Bush shakes hands with the leders of countries around the world. Standard procedure. Same with the Saudis. That does not make him a “blood brother” or whatever you are suggesting.”
THE TRUTH DUSTY:
The Bush crime family have more than a handshake with the Saudis…
In the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks while U.S. airspace was restricted, planes sanctioned by the Bush administration flew about the country gathering some 140 high-ranking Saudi Arabians – including several relatives of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden – who were then spirited out of the country within a week of the terror, according to a senior official.
Sound more than just a hand shake to me!
By Dusty
May 29, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this
Copyleft@2:26
Thank you for your excellent example of pure hate. Let it all hang out as ugly as it is.
Now, from what country are you posting ? Cuba? Venezuela? North Korea?
By Steve-O
May 29, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this
Look everybody, the Republicans are very angry because their so-called “revolution” of ‘94 was a big fat failure. It’s embarrassing for them. They have had their hand at controlling things for a while now and they have found themselves wildly reviled and unpopular and it stings the ego a bit. They cannot admit that things have gone badly while their captain was at the helm so they lash out and call names and try, however lamely, to blame the democrats. The only people who are buying their line is themselves. Everyone else (about 70 percent of the US voting pop.) quit listening to their BS long ago. It’s very easy to look at the facts and know the score and who to blame, you know, so long as your judgment is not clouded by blind allegiance to a failed leader. If that’s the case, the rest of us can’t help you.
By Certifiable
May 29, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this
Maybe one has to be a little more mature to make mistakes and then take responsibility for them. Claiming he wasn’t in the room is a way to justify our own mistakes instead of taking responsibility for them. One of the criteria for commenting might begin with having read at least the preface.
By Glenn
May 29, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this
fairy godmother @ 12:59,
As you’re too chickenshot even to name Obama—-to state where your piper Barack would fall on any recognizable political map—-I can only say, in answer to your reactionary defense of the AJC-at-its-nadir, F~@# You and the who-R’s you work for.
By doctor do right
May 29, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
By Dusty
May 29, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this
Copyleft@2:26
Thank you for your excellent example of pure hate. Let it all hang out as ugly as it is.
UMMMMMMM…Sounds interesting.
I’ll show you mine. If you’ll show me yours.
“Let it all hang out.”
By Dusty
May 29, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this
dirty harry,2:39
Now tell me, exactly how did anyone know the nationality of terrorists on the planes of 9/11 within a few days of the happening? Sift the ashes?
Do you think there would have been some high ranking Saudis in America if they knew about the plans for 9/11? Duh!! They were flown out for their safety as they were from the Middle East and the future was uncertain. We were not at war with Saudi Arabia. We were at war with Islamicfascist terrorists wherever they were.
Stop reading liberal fact sheets to disgrace America. You are living here in safety. Appreciate it!!
By Wow
May 29, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this
Glenn sure is mean.
By Glenn
May 29, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this
By the way, jbm, your 8:40 is the best thing I’ve read on this blog in months. It’s what inspires me to go over into gloves-off mode. These proggies have got another thing coming.
By Coweataboy
May 29, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
What a surprise—that Jim Wooten would minimize any negative comment about W, whatever its source. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
By fairy god mother
May 29, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
By Glenn
May 29, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this
Oh my, tsk, tsk, tsk,
Glenn your choice of language is very disappointing. I had thought we talked about your anger management? Are you not attending your classes, and not taking your meds? As your fairy god mother please seek to save yourself. Perhaps an affectionate kitty? They always make me feel swell! Check in now and again I’ll be interested in how you are doing. Until then….
Plunk your magic twanger froggie!
By ahyesnowisee
May 29, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this
What a surprise—that Jim Wooten would minimize any negative comment about W, whatever its source. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
By I'm confused
May 29, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this
Is fairy god mother telling Glenn to manually pleasure himself in That Way?
Oh yeah, and I agree with wow, he is one big meanie weenie today. Sheesh what a grouch.
By ahyesnowisee
May 29, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this
What a surprise—that Jim Wooten would minimize any negative comment about W, whatever its source. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
By Glenn
May 29, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this
I just love the sound of you whimpering Proglodytes writhing on the ground with your bellies exposed in surrender.
You’re all fight and no bite. A$$ holes.
By Chuck Woolery
May 29, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this
What’s with this Glenn guy and “naming,” Obama? Didn’t his parents do that already?
By Taxpayer
May 29, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this
Jim,
If you are not a fan of this sort of publicity, then why even bother acknowledging it. Really, Jim.
By Hannibal
May 29, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this
And not only that, they’re all stalk and no scalpel.
By peter
May 29, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
What is this you wrote?
“Republicans don’t kiss Osama bin laden’s azz every day like lefties (That’s you.)”.
Gee Dusty letting him go Free, and invading Iraq, is pretty much kissing his butt, and the entire OIL rich Bin laden Family!
Seems most folks in America wanted Bin Laden caught, and not have a meaningless WAR.
Thus the 71% disapproval rating for King George.
Gotta love this statement as well…
By the way, did you still have “faith” in President Clinton when he disgraced our country with some of the most unethical behavior in the history of the American Presidency?
Gee Clinton never spent $600 Billion on a made up WAR, and if you don’t think the lies of this is NOT a disgrace, then I guess we should go out and invade more countries from your point of view.
You really don’t make too much sense….Blah Blah Blah..
By Glenn
May 29, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this
Three reasons to quit this blog despite the ever-reasonable jbmlaw and the ever-adorably-reasonable @@:
Andy, whose disciplined and brilliant vigilance proves daily that the AJC is a Democrat broadsheet, nevertheless defends the paper against any effort to oust the nice, employee-friendly Cox, the poster child of journalistic morbidity.
The blogoyle, PoFo, tireless promoter of Mr. Obama of Chicago, refuses to name any peg on which voters might hang their Obama hat—-refuses to say where Obama falls on the political spectrum, or to say what species of American politician Obama is, or to locate Obama on any familiar political map.
Jim Wooten himself won’t stop writing about education, concerning which he’s incapable of publishing other than gibberish. And republishing same, and republishing it, and republishing it.
By dirty harry
May 29, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this
By Dusty
May 29, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this
As usual Dusty you just throw out anything hoping it will stick!
Your question…”Now tell me, exactly how did anyone know the nationality of terrorists on the planes of 9/11 within a few days of the happening? Sift the ashes?”
The suspects were identified within 72 hours because few made any attempt to disguise their names on flight and credit card records and they were among the few non-U.S. citizens and nearly the only passengers with Arabic names on their flights, enabling the FBI to identify their names and in many cases such details as dates of birth, known, and/or possible residences, visa status, and specific identification of the suspected pilots within hours.[12] On September 27, 2001 the FBI released photos of the 19 hijackers, along with information about many of their possible nationalities and aliases.[13] All the suspected hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon or Egypt.
Good enough for ya Dusty? Oh, I know it’s a left wing story, made up by left wing goofs.
By reebok
May 29, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
Wow…Bush lied…but it’s “not indictable.” We sure do hold the Alcoholic-in-Chief to a high standard!
By jbmlaw
May 29, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
Dear jm @ 2:04, you are correct, thanks. Brain freeze I guess, no better excuse than that.
Dear dirty @ 2:14. not that facts matter to leftists, but if Plame was “outed” it was by her husband on his online resume. Bob Novak got his information directly from wishy-washy moderate Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s deputy. Your confusion is natural as wishy-washy moderate Colin Powell was knowledgeable about Armitage’s disclosure (unlike George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, or Scooter Libby) and Colin was the principal in the cover-up. Had Colin spoken up honestly, telling what he knew and when he knew it, Scooter Libby would never had enjoyed an opportunity to mis-remember who he spoke to and when, and his political show-trial would never have occurred. You’re welcome.
Dear Lauren @ 2:34, “So the Dems are to blame for the deregulation of lending practices which have led to the housing crisis? We are to blame for this war which is a quagmire that has ruined our reputation worldwide? We are to blame for the poor response of this administration to the Katrina disaster? We are to blame for making the oil companies rich beyond their wildest dreams while gas climbs beyond 4 bucks a gallon? We are to blame for scandal after scandal that has rocked this administration? Oh, yes, it’s all our fault because we did not approve a few judicial nominees. Yep, that is what caused all this mess. Give me a break!!!” The first step to recovery is to face the truth.
(1) There was never any deregulation of lending practices until the democrats passed the legislation one month ago, freeing up FNMA and FHLMC to make the crazy loans, with taxpayer subsidies, that made Bear Sterns the powerhouse it is today. I think you misattribute - to conservatives - the Fed’s fidelity to the Philips Curve, finally discredited in 1978. Only leftists cling to the Philips Curve. Perhaps you would disagree with democrat party policy, and would join me in lobbying the Fed to push interest rates substantially higher, without regard to the economic risks perceived by leftists.
(2) War quagmire? I suppose you can continue to deny the success that Iraq is, but your silly comment about our international “friends?” Is that why Tony Blair, Labor leader was so faithful to the effort? Is that why France and German elected conservatives three years into the war? I suppose you can call it a quagmire in the sense that nobody in Iraq wants us to leave. US Military is even more appreciated in Iraq than it is in Germany.
(3) On September 11, 2001, the city of New York responded to the 9/11 disaster. The state offered its support. The federal government stayed out of the way. Of course, if you have a republican mayor and a republican governor, you should anticipate a competent response to a local disaster. So how was New Orleans different, other than the fact that it had a democrat mayor and a democrat governor?
(3) Democrats are undoubtedly hostile to capitalism, so your anti-oil company screed is certainly in character. You lament the profits of oil companies, for discovering, drilling, transporting, refining, and distributing efficiently a rare commodity. You conceal the fact that the government’s take is greater than that of the oil companies after taxes. But we know how much the government does to facilitate gasoline distribution to earn those tax dollars. Why do you complain about oil company profits but ignore Google?
(4) Scandal after scandal? Phony. When you don’t have anything to contribute, you wring your hands and yell “scandal.” We don’t expect democrats to contribute to solutions, that is beyond your capacity. No, we expect you to be the screaming monkey jumping on the back of the fellow who does the heavy lifting.
(5) Let’s talk a bit about “judicial appointments.” There is undoubtedly a gulf between the character of the Catholic conservatives on the court and the leftist bloc. I suppose if you thought Kelo was the epitome of Supreme Court judgment, you need to continue to block conservatives. Those of us who found Kelo obnoxious think a “leftist” suspicion is sufficient basis to oppose any future nominee. I think the best litmus test available is to ask a nominee if he/she thinks McCain-Feingold is constitutional; anyone who does is rejected.
Dear Glenn @ 3:04, thanks, but I am certain you merely recognize your own arguments, and the way they have influenced me.
By Glenn
May 29, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this
Three reasons to quit this blog despite the ever-reasonable jbmlaw and the ever-adorably-reasonable @@:
Andy, whose disciplined and brilliant vigilance proves daily that the AJC is a Democrat broadsheet, nevertheless defends the paper against any effort to oust the nice, employee-friendly Cox, the poster child of journalistic morbidity.
The blogoyle, PoFo, tireless promoter of Mr. Obama of Chicago, refuses to name any peg on which voters might hang their Obama hat—-refuses to say where Obama falls on the political spectrum, or to say what species of American politician Obama is, or to locate Obama on any familiar political map.
Jim Wooten himself won’t stop writing about education, concerning which he’s incapable of publishing other than gibberish; and republishing same, and republishing it, and republishing it, world without end.
By Blind Homer
May 29, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this
Dustbin - They had pictures from airport surveillance cameras and turned the fine intelligence services that reported the non-existent WMD to run down their identities. The majority turned out to be Saudi as was Bin Laden the self-admitted ringleader so, of course, your fearless leader decided we would get them by invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Or was that because he had a hard one for Saddam due to daddy winning the war and losing the re-election, or because the Bush royal family had a deal with the Saudi Royal family (exactly why did senior get those millions in speaking fees from the Saudis after he left office?). The Bushes and their like are woring us out to the Saudis, selling our valiant soldiers time, well-being, and even their very lifes like some Saturday night pims and a moron like you calls that patriotism!!! Be patriotic and choke on your own vomit.
By dirty harry
May 29, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this
By jbmlaw
May 29, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
LAWDAWG…Please point me in the direction of Joe Wilsons resume. I would love to read where he outed his wife.
By retawdloG yrraB
May 29, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this
Here I am sitting in a meeting, reading Wooten’s blog, I’ve got to tee tee really bad and I’m holding in a phart that will register on the Richter scale when finally gifted to the world. How’s your afternoon going?
By ghost rider
May 29, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this
Jbm you write…
“I suppose you can call it a quagmire in the sense that nobody in Iraq wants us to leave. US Military is even more appreciated in Iraq than it is in Germany.”
“NOBODY IN IRAQ WANTS US TO LEAVE.” Please, enlighten me and, tell me where you got that little bit of information? And, your second statement is just as ludicrous as well…”US Military is even more appreciated in Iraq than it is in Germany.” Oh well…If you say so JBM I guess I’ll believe you!
HORSE PUCKEY!!!! PUCKY!!!!!
By ahyesnowisee
May 29, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this
The 24% of Americans who still approve of W must all contribute to this blog.
By Wow
May 29, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this
!naem, si nnelG
By dirty harry
May 29, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this
By dirty harry
May 29, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this
Dustrag I’m still waiting for your little smarmy response.
I guess you’ve been shot down enough for one day….It hurts don’t it?
Off for a cocktail…my favorite time every day!
By Wow
May 29, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this
!naem si nnelG
By dirty harry
May 29, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this
By dirty harry
May 29, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this
By jbmlaw
SO, LAWDAWG I can tell by your non-response you were telling a fairy tale when you wrote “if Plame was “outed” it was by her husband on his online resume.
Where is the proof LAWDAWG?
Just another neocon…spinning, spinning…but, certainly not winning!
By Dusty
May 29, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this
dirty harry,@4:17
I am checking back before leaving the blog. Glad you see how efficient the FBI was after 9/11. Glad they knew in a couple of days that terrorists came from several different MidEast countries and were all religious fanatics. The FBI was smart enough to know that the Saudi leaders were not terrorists.
Unlike you, the FBI did not incriminate EVERYBODY from the Middle East.
How you blame all THAT on Bush and a handshake is beyond me. It takes a really twisted brain to conjure that one up. But YOU did it!! Yay for the most twisted of liberals…dirty harry. You can now have your water pistol again for being the super sleuth of sludge.
Bye now…..
By doctor do right
May 29, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this
By Glenn
May 29, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this
“By the way, jbm, your 8:40 is the best thing I’ve read on this blog in months. It’s what inspires me to go over into gloves-off mode. These proggies have got another thing coming.”
Glenn, as your doctor and confidant I must tell you the above post sounds a little on the GAY side.
There are a lot of VERY BIG REDNECKS who don’t take kindly to these type of shenanigans!
Trip lightly in your loafers, but don’t be to obvious!
By dirty harry
May 29, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this
By Dusty
May 29, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this
I have figured out why you are so in love with Bush!
You like Bush are unwilling to say I made a mistake…..
As I said a swarmy comment from a swarmy person.
By Lauren
May 29, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this
J”Bowel Movement”Law, you are whistling in the dark. I am sorry but nearly every thing you wrote in your 3:38 post is hogwash. I am done talking to you because you are simply beyond stupid. If you think this war is a success then you are obviously a prisoner of Fox News. You don’t know anything about what got us into this housing crisis. I suggest you read up on Charlie Black. I am not against capitalism, that is a lame insult. And the only time Republicans are unconcerned with scandal is when they are the offenders, otherwise they are the morality police, so spare me the hypocritical BS that scandal does not matter. And lastly, if all you said was true then I doubt your leader would have a 30% approval rating. If all he has done is so great then why is this country such a mess and why is Bush so unpopular? You need to face facts, I know you believe your own BS but most people don’t. Just because you live in the south where idiots are at a high concentration don’t assume the rest of the country agrees. As usual, the rest of the country sees the south as the butthole of America, which we are! We are a huge, idiotic, conservative, racist, ignorant dungheap and you are one of the biggest weeds sprouting out of it.
By Alex
May 29, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this
I’ve got pains in me gulliver and me guttie-wuts.
By Plagiarism police
May 29, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this
If you are going to life my work, it’s “jumbo bowel movement.” Thanks for your kind attention.
By Steve-O
May 29, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this
Oh my god! You Republicans wouldn’t know the truth if it came in your face!
By Glenn
May 29, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this
Why, Foreskin that Once Was Political, you’re not a gargoyle at all! Gargoyles are static; you’re as kinetic as a nervous marmoset scampering over the ruins of a great civilization. You don’t urinate on the bloggers here so much as you, in marmoset fashion, vomit half-digested fruit, day in and day out, and all the day long.
By RiotGrill
May 29, 2008 5:21 PM | Link to this
Yeah, you sound like a Jumbo Bowl Movement. Everytime I read your posts is sounds like someone have a nice long sit on the thunder bucket. You have named yourself well.
By Steve-O
May 29, 2008 5:29 PM | Link to this
Nope, you would not know the truth, dear Republicans, if it grabbed its monster wang and squirted its spooge all over your ugly faces. You would just lick it up and call it Cool Whip.
By Flava
May 29, 2008 5:37 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw, I bet your wife’s face smells like ball sweat.
By jbmlaw
May 29, 2008 5:38 PM | Link to this
Dear Dirty @ various times, Who’s Who in America. http://granddaddylonglegs.blogspot.com/2006/07/joe-wilson-gray-wall-of-silence.html.
Dear Lauren @ 4:56, if you drink leftist kool-aid long enough, the truth tastes like hogwash.
Dear Glenn @ 3:39, please don’t quit posting. I understand your frustration, that the leftists prove to be unusually slow-learners, but that is the cause of their attraction to the ideology in the first place. Our duty is to correct their misimpressions, to bring them back to the way of lightness such they will not be blinded.
By jbmlaw
May 29, 2008 5:41 PM | Link to this
Dear Riot @ 5:21, certainly people of your ilk willingly fail to distinguish that which your overlords dump on you and the contents of a cistern, so why should I expect any other perception from you? That is all you know.
By jbmlaw
May 29, 2008 5:43 PM | Link to this
Dear Flava @ 5:37, you drew the wrong impression when you sniffed Mrs. Flava’s face.
By Lauren
May 29, 2008 5:46 PM | Link to this
Dear JBMLAW, just because Fox News says it, does not mean it’s true. I think it’s funny that a true kool-aid drinker does not see the irony of his statements. Just like the rest of the Bush army, you are sad. Prepare yourself for quite the blow in November. Your party will lose the Presidency and slip further into the minority in the House and Senate. I’ll meet you back here then for a good laugh!
By jbmlaw
May 29, 2008 5:52 PM | Link to this
Dear Lauren @ 5:46, you obviously have not been around this blog very long, as your post does not reflect an acquaintance with my arguments. Come back tomorrow, and every day thereafter. Read the archives, back to the first day of this blog. Eventually the painful truth will start to dawn on you. I don’t know why you leftists always want to attribute my brilliance to Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. I don’t have cable television, and I listen to my mp3 player at work. I suspect Fox and Rush get their ideas from me.
By Stan
May 29, 2008 6:05 PM | Link to this
What is the big deal,anyone with have a brain new what he said about invading Iraq was wack from Jumpstreet. When is will Idealogy take a backseat to what is right and what is wrong. How would you feel if your son,daughter,brother,husband,wife,friend lost their life over George and his boys chasing the mighty dollar,How would you feel rightwingers.
By Blind Homer
May 29, 2008 6:09 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw - That whole demo Senate riff was very, very weak, no brilliance there. By that argument your god Reagan was worthless, a product only of the fine deeds of the Demo Congress during his entire Administration. BTW, he and the Congresses during his administration sucked, huge deficits while cutting taxes for the rich, amnesty for illegals leading to the current invasion, the S&L crisis. etc. However, he did at least manage to be a traitor without assistance from Congress.
By ivkhug pjudbhzmi
April 1, 2009 5:10 AM | Link to this
lbewigayc mfwplax ufstj sfimhnevo cowe uqfxt mhuqzb
By ivkhug pjudbhzmi
April 1, 2009 5:10 AM | Link to this
lbewigayc mfwplax ufstj sfimhnevo cowe uqfxt mhuqzb
By ivkhug pjudbhzmi
April 1, 2009 5:11 AM | Link to this
lbewigayc mfwplax ufstj sfimhnevo cowe uqfxt mhuqzb