I have nothing I care to say and other things to attend to- flame away at each other. Suggested flame war topics:
1.) Since we have pretty conclusive proof that Saddam did not, at the time of invasion, have WMD, why then was he resisting attempots to inspect? Did he think his bribed had made sure he could do as he please?
2.) Frank Rich’s column yesterday referred to the Swifting of Cindy Sheehan. Could an argument be made that Cindy Sheehan is the Swift Vet?
3.) Michael Moore is fat.
BinkyBoy
1) I believe Saddam resisted the discovery that he was virtually defenseless against other Middle East dictators and overthrow. By continually keeping his neighbors afraid of his potential, he acheieved a tense peace and created a bubble mentality for his country. He was leaving everyone alone and everyone left him alone. To what purpose this would eventually lead I don’t know.
2) Cindy Sheehan is the swift vet? huh?
3) Michael Moore is fat. What about it? Wanna make something of it? Most of America is obese, why must you hate most of America, John?
Vladi G
Because threats work a lot better if people don’t know you’re bluffing.
If someone robs a liquor store with his hand stuck under his jacket like he’s holding a gun that he doesn’t have, and he gets shot, we don’t later ask “why didn’t he just tell them he didn’t really have a gun?”
Saddam wanted to maintain his profile, which couldn’t happen if no one was afraid of him. So he bluffed, and the administration called his bluff for whatever the trumped up reason du-jour is. Of course, the difference in this case is that there were people on the ground looking the stuff and telling us he didn’t have it.
MC
OK – I’ll start. We were playing this one a few days ago and thought it was pretty controversial.
PROOF THAT GWB KNEW THAT IRAQ DID NOT HAVE WMD
(Now that I have your attention…)
Leading up to the war, if you thought that Iraq had WMD (as I did), you would probably admit that Iraq was dangerous to the US at that time because he did not have long-range deployment capabilities – yet. The idea was that this could be “delivered” by terrorists, but wouldn’t be launched into cities in the U.S.
It was known that Saddam Hussein had short-range missiles with a range that could be used within the borders of Iraq. He had also shown no compunction about using WMD on his own people, so there’s nothing to think he wouldn’t unleash anthrax or nukes inside his own country.
With that in mind, why start with a land invasion? If Saddam Hussein is truly a madman, hell-bent on opposing the U.S. and in possession of weapons of unimaginable destruction, why wouldn’t he lure the U.S. troops into Iraq and use them as a defensive action, even if doing so would kill Iraqis?
If he’s such a madman, why not a 30-40 day air offensive with limited invasion to destroy the entire infrastructure before a ground invasion and possible use of WMD?
If Saddam wouldn’t use WMD on U.S. troops within his own country to defend his position of power, then maybe he wasn’t such a madman, and could have been dealt with diplomatically?
Or, maybe our government knew already that he didn’t have WMD and they were no threat to U.S. troops on the ground inside Iraq.
John S.
I also tend to think that he was reluctant to allow inspectors in to prove to the United Nations (and his neighbors) that he didn’t have any real weapons to wage war with.
If Iran (amongst others, including Iraqis) knew how badly crippled Iraq was militarily, I think that would have caused quite a good deal of havoc over there.
Not that they didn’t get havoc over there in the end, anyway.
KC
Michael Moore isn’t fat!
ppGaz
Saddam Hussein was caught in a trap of his own making.
On the one hand, he ruled largely through fear and intimidation, and saber rattling. Without or without any actual sabers. He was a huckster.
On the other hand, his despotic tendency to get rid of his opposition and his bungling of the relationship with the United States got him into the post-Gulf War situation where he had to act tough and talk tough to keep his internal enemies at bay, but at the same time not so tough that he triggered a Western reaction that would knock down his sand castle.
Hussein is shrewd and a good showman, but he wasn’t good enough to pull off the ruse forever. He managed to make himself “removable” to the second Bush government, and … the rest is history, so to speak. He could easily have pulled out his pockets and opened everything up to inspection, but to do so would have exposed the truth he didn’t want his own people to know: That his endless bluster and chest-beating “protection” of Iraq from “enemies” was all just theater, theater to cover up for what he was really doing with his country’s resources:
Stealing their value and stuffing the money into his pockets.
Full disclosure to the UN would have revealed the emptiness of his bamboozle of his own people. He gambled that he could get away with the tightrope walk. He lost.
Tim F
1) Saddam needed his neighbors to think that he might have WMDs. If they knew for sure that he didn’t then they would treat him as the eunuch that he was.
Tim F
That is to say, what everybody else already said.
BinkyBoy
Just out of curiosity, but is there an “Ignore Darrell” button that I havn’t found yet? I’d really like a fun flame war, sans ignorant buffoon.
ppGaz
You managed to say in two short sentences what it took me ten mostly long ones to say. If you replace “eunuch” with “eunuch-thief” then the match is almost perfect.
I’m hiring you to write my posts for me from now on.
Just send me your rate card.
Geek, Esq.
I thought Cindy Sheehan was the Schindler family, and that Casey Sheehan was Terri Schiavo.
Michael Moore is not fat. He’s morbidly obese.
MI
I’m far from an expert on this shit, but I think Saddam was in a very precarious position(duh?). If it became known that he had no WMD’s, he would virtually immediately lose whatever power he had in the mid east, it would have basically neutered him.
He probably figured he could play games like he always had, the US would back down, and the region would continue to believe he was one badass mother you didn’t wanna mess with.
There’s also the most obvious, least sexy, least conspiratorial explanation, that what he claimed at the time was true, he genuinely felt insulted and disrespected that the inspectors wanted complete access, even though the inspections would obviously be rendered pointless without it. I couldn’t care less about what he thought, but it is kind of a legitimate response, from his point of view anyway, even if for (Iraq’s) security concerns.
Anyway, that’s all widely irresponsible speculation.
MI
ahh, I see you guys were way ahead of me!
Chris
2) What I don’t get is why Rich assumes that orders came down on high to “destroy” Cindy Sheehan. As far I can tell, the only organized groups are those that support her, and the response to Sheehan bubbled up from the blogs.
Also, at this time, we don’t know (this is for the assignment desk) if Ms. Sheehan lined up support before she left for Crawford. If so, that would make her more the Swift, than the negative response to her protest.
With all that said, her protest and the response to it is what makes this country great.
jg
I disagree. No chance he gives away the weapons he’s been seeking. Especially nukes. They give him status if he’s got them (or as everybody has said, if people think he has them).
MI
I don’t know how well the second reason translated from my head to the comments section, but what I meant basically was, If I had been Saddam, I wouldn’t have wanted inspectors rooting around sensitive security areas irrespective of whether I had WMD or not.
MI
Am I an utterly naive and ignorant fool to think the idea of Saddam giving nukes to terrorists is absurd?
I think the prospect of nukes being stolen, or falling into religious extremists hands through a coup a much more likely scenario. But maybe that’s a draw and my point is mute.
rilkefan
Probably the earlier use of inspectors to gather non-WMD intel against him was a motivation, but I suspect some “I’m not going to service the UN/US” was part of it. Also, while I agree that hiding his lack of WMDs was important, I think he was hiding the truth from his own people more than from his neighbors. The Kurds for one hadn’t forgotten getting gassed.
Anyway, he probably banked too much on rational policy-making in Washington. After all, there were inspectors in Iraq that spring, and they were reporting they had found squat. The Cheney admin was so fixed on the belief that he did have WMDs, or so reliant on the fake belief to further their goal of remaking the ME (and getting bases there and performing an awesome ass-kicking as a demo to the world), that Saddam’s allowing of clear evidence he was toothless wasn’t enough.
Dave Ruddell
Michael Moore is not fat, he simply has big bones.
Big, fatty bones.
BumperStickerist
Plan B: would be a thread where we can review Jerome and Kos’s forthcoming book Donkey Fall before it’s released.
Hey, this ‘review before it’s released’ technique works for MSM coverage of Presidential speeches.
Andrei
From an interview with Saddam right before the war. Saddam interview Dan Rather
Sure. Saddam is generally a lying, muderous sack of shit, and can’t be trusted. But isn’t it sad how in this case, he was seemingly telling the truth with regard to missiles or other WMDs charges? And even he suggested asking the inspection teams to present their evidence he still had WMDs that violated the U.N. sanctions.
There’s some sick, distasteful, putrid irony for all of us in that.
All the evidence prior to the war was there with regard to this sort of question. The fact so many had bloodlust and chose to ignore what the right thing to do was doesn’t mean anyone shouldn’t own their own accountability for being duped by this adminsitration. My own take on this last October, almost a year ago.
Vlad
“Could an argument be made that Cindy Sheehan is the Swift Vet?”
If I’m understanding you correctly, no.
BumperStickerist
Cindy is John Kerry –
To the extent that John Kerry’s own statements about his service in Vietnam cannot be reconciled and that people who point this out are Evil Swift Boat Veterans, so, too, are those who point out Cindy’s oxymoronic statementand actions.
Of course she’s being Swift Vetted, it’s just that the SBVfT were right.
John S.
Refresh my memory – I have such a hard time keeping track of BS – what exactly were the Swift Boat Vets right about?
Otto Man
Let me just point to the above responses and say “megadittos.” Saddam was all bark, no bite, and he needed to convince his enemies, inside and outside Iraq, that he had something.
I think this is a question that depends on what the meaning of “Swift Vet” is. And I’m sure that opinion varies wildly around here.
But since you asked, no. To equate the two would be to equate the questions posed by both. Sheehan has asked why we’re in Iraq. The Swift Boaters asked why John Kerry was a traitorous, self-wounding, opportunistic scumbag, and please ignore all our previous comments to the contrary.
True, many of those on the right, those who are still so scarily wrapped up in the Cult of Personality, will hear “why are we in Iraq?” and translate it as “why is Bush the blood-hungry, oil-grubbing, spawn of Hitler?” but that doesn’t make it so. Just because support for the war is all about protecting Dear Leader on the right doesn’t mean it’s all about him on the left.
Still the only real comeback the right has to this guy. Sure, he’s fat. Fatty fat fat.
Otto Man
I’m still trying to figure out how her statement was “oxymoronic.” Did she mention jumbo shrimp?
Mr Furious
What’s going to happen when John’s summer “break” is over and he’s too busy to blog…?
Perish the thought.
salvage
1.) He resisted inspections because he wanted Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to think he had them. To confirm that he didn’t would cause him to lose an edge in dealing with neighbors. Plus he didn’t want to look like a pussy with the UN & the U.S. telling him what’s what.
2.) I don’t think so; the Swift Boating slime was different in style, tactics and effect. The only thing they’ve come up with so far is that she hates Bush which is the truth and not exactly detrimental to her cause.
3.) He is a big old fat ass and he should do something about it. I was watching Roger and Me the other day, the man is heading to Brando country and if he doesn’t get his rotundness onto an elliptical machine soon he will end up dead of a heart attack or cancer.
Boronx
Since we have pretty conclusive proof that Saddam did not, at the time of invasion, have WMD, why then was he resisting attempts to inspect?
Bullshit. He resisted attempts to inspect just until he was threatened with force.
In the end, the inspectors had got almost all of their demands.
The inspectors did not say: “US intelligence is useless to us because Saddam won’t let us check the sites.”
The inspectors did say: “US intelligence is bullshit because we go to these sites and there’s nothing there and there hadn’t been for a long while.”
It’s also pretty well known that the CIA had infiltrated the earlier inspection teams to spy on Saddam, so he had other motives for not trusting the UN.
If Bush had said, “The American military has done it’s job by forcing Saddam to admit inspections, and without any loss of life.” He would be hailed as a humanitarian and a strategicly adept world leader.
ppGaz
The DLC is the enemy of Democrats and the enemy of a healthy two-party system.
I vote that the entire DLC membership be transported to Mars, in first class on the same ship that the Dobsonites are in coach.
Then we can have our country back.
Tim F
Bumpist,
Nice review. I’m sure it reads better in the original crayon.
jg
1)Pride?
Mike S
The swift liars were right. Kerry’s boat did fire on an innocent boat. Except that it was Steve Gardner who did the firing. Kerry was a coward, except that it was President Bush who said he didn’t want to blow his ear drum out to avoid Vietnam.
Chuck Colson did a good job finding John O’Neill and creating the Vietnam Veterans for Just Peace. I spoke to him 3 times and he was the best liar I have ever dealt with. But then honesty is not a virtue in the new Republican party.
TallDave
Oh yeah? Well, take this:
You swollen-headed warmonger, your ridiculous clamour for “human rights” is nothing but a shrill cry!
Mike
ppGaz Says:
“The DLC is the enemy of Democrats and the enemy of a healthy two-party system.
I vote that the entire DLC membership be transported to Mars, in first class on the same ship that the Dobsonites are in coach.
Then we can have our country back.”
That depends.
If the “country” you want back is based on Left-Wing Socialism.
Keep dreaming, ain’t gonna happen.
TallDave
It was made pretty clear in the Kay report that Saddam was preparing to start his WMD programs again as soon he bribed his way out of the inspections.
That was the point: not to conceal stockpiles, but to conceal the secret network of WMD labs and buried nuclear weapons program components.
BinkyBoy
TallDave shows just how much of his brain has rotted on the Kool-Aid.
Where are all these labs, Dave? Where are all those buried Nuclear program components? Maybe you’re talking about the centrifuge that was buried in the scientist’s back yard? Or maybe you’re talking about the mobile weapons labs?
You know, the ones that Colin Powell displayed to the world when he stood in front of the UN and made a complete ass of himself and his country?
Bill from INDC
what exactly were the Swift Boat Vets right about?
Off the top of my head: at least one of three purple heart citations was a self-inflicted flesh wound suffered from shrapnel off a grenade launcher fired by Kerry, confirmed via Kerry’s own diary. This was cited in the Washington Post, among other places.
Kerry was not in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, as he claimed in his memoirs and on the floor of the Senate, as contradicted by his diary and official records.
On subjective counts, the “Swift Vets and POW’s for Truth”, including Medal of Honor winner Bud Day and several men that were tortured in N Vietnamese prison camps, made the claim that Kerry’s testimony before the senate, alleging war crimes as a matter of policy, as well as his recitation of testimony from the Winter Soldier’s Conference regarding horrific war crimes, much of which was subsequently recanted and/or debunked, was irresponsible, worsened their confinement and served as a propaganda too for the enemy.
An investigation by the WaPo found that Swift Vet claims about his third purple heart and bronze star were equivocal and directly contradicted by Navy Records.
So while this may have a hard time soaking through the thick skulls of ideologues, some of the Swift Vet claims were proven correct, some were apparently false (though not proven false by an empirical standard) and some were subjective judgments taht they had every right to make, especially those that were forced to listen to his testimony while the North Vietnamese pulled their fingernails out.
This is off the top of my head, of course. I believe that there were several other claims (around Kerry’s combat record) that were either equivocal or apparently refuted by the official record.
jg
Pure fantasy.
ppGaz
It’s a country where practiced demagogues don’t run everything.
Demagogues of any stripe. Fuck them all, the long, the short, and the tall. To coin a phrase.
Power brokers and self-interested dividers of the people.
Screw all of them. Donkeys, Elephants, bloggers, anchormen.
To the moon, Alice.
TallDave
accountability for being duped by this adminsitration
I love statements like this, because it just shows how committed to lying the anti-war crowd is.
For the ten billionth time, it was the unanimous opinion of the world’s intel agencies that Saddam had WMD. Do we need to dredge the dozens of quotes from Democrats about how Saddam had WMD and was sure to us them again?
If anyone did any “duping” it was the intel agencies. More likely, of course, they were just wrong.
Bill from INDC
Where are all these labs, Dave?
Most WMD labs are dual-use facilities. So they are there right now, actually.
TallDave
jg,
OK, then why did Saddam have a network of clandestine WMD labs? To impress his dates?
TallDave
Geez, didn’t anyone read the Kay report?
BinkyBoy
Oh, you mean all of those labs that were monitored on a consistent basis by the UN? You mean the ones that were well known and their locations well understood?
Please, come up with something new..
Oh, and Dave, when the major/single source of the intel was Ahmed Chalabi, and that intelligence was shared with the whole world, then yes, EVERYONE was duped. Those that allowed Chalabi to be a single source of fabricated intelligence should be held responsible. You know, like his personal friend Rumsfeld?
We know exactly where the weapons are, they are north, south, east and west of your ass.
Tim F
TallDave,
If you believe that you can bury a nuclear program in a garden then I have a 3.25% mortgage plan to sell you. Just send me your account info and we’re all set.
BinkyBoy
But but but but
He buried a MIG!
Bill from INDC
jg said this was “Pure fantasy:”
It was made pretty clear in the Kay report that Saddam was preparing to start his WMD programs again as soon he bribed his way out of the inspections.
What exactly was fantasy? That Kay’s report said that? (It did)
Or are you implying that kay – a strident critic of the intelligence prior to the Iraq invasion, as well as many aspects of subsequent policy – was making shit up?
Sounds like you may have the “fantasy” problem.
ppGaz
Putting aside the obvious observation that they were unanimously wrong …. and therefore deserve nothing but outrage and scorn now, as do the civilian leaders in charge of them, whose job it is to manage these resources, not to swallow whatever they say hook, line and sinker especially when a frigiing WAR is at stake and there is conflicting evidence ….
…putting that aside just for the moment ….
The simple expedient of continued inspections would have revealed the truth in less than 180 days …. we know this because we carried out those very inspections and we found out the truth in short order, but AFTER the war was on.
What terrible consequences would have ensued had those 180 days been spent doing aggressive inspection and analysis?
TallDave
Oh, you mean all of those labs that were monitored on a consistent basis by the UN?
No, the secret ones that he was required to disclose but didn’t.
Tim F,
Well, you explain that to the guy was burying them there then. I’m sure he’ll find your mortgage offer interesting.
TallDave
What terrible consequences would have ensued had those 180 days been spent doing aggressive inspection and analysis?
You mean besides the continuation of Saddam’s regime? Or the fact it’s very hard to find something when people with guns threaten to shoot you for looking?
Mike S
That is a good example of the craven use of inuendo people like O’Neill and Gardner used. Calling it “self inflicted” was an attept to make the more unintelligent among the electorate think it was intentional, which worked perfectly with morons like Michele Malkin.
It’s a great example of just how low the new Republicans are when they trash a man who actually went to war and make a rich kid who avoided it at all costs a hero.
Otto Man
Do we need to explain that those Democrats got their briefings from administration intelligence experts and drew their conclusions on those grounds? Or do you think there’s a Senate Intelligence Agency?
Just because the administration did a good job of spreading their bullshit doesn’t make it any truer.
TallDave
and we found out the truth in short order, but AFTER the war was on.
Yeah, see, that’s kind of the point. Once the regime was, you know, removed from power, it became a lot easier to find what they were (and were not) hiding.
Mike S
I think “threaten”ing is a great deal better than actually shooting.
TallDave
administration intelligence experts
Right, I keep forgetting the CIA is composed entirely of Republicans.
And all the other non-American intel agencies, they’re Republicans too.
cminus
1) What everyone’s been saying, I guess, plus US influence in the WMD inspection teams may have triggered his standard-issue-Middle-Eastern-dictator paranoia. Although I know someone who’s made a surprisingly cogent argument that Hussein may have thought he still had WMD, courtesy of over-optimistic reports from his minions, since he wasn’t exactly known for not shooting the messenger.
2) You might, but I’m not sure I would. (And, as regards an earlier question in comments as to what the Swifties were “right” about, it appears that they were correct in saying that Kerry didn’t spend Christmas in Cambodia, but at least a hundred yards away across the unmarked Vietnamese border. So, clearly, he made up his entire military service, including the Purple Heart, which is actually a shellacked marshmellow from a box of “Lucky Charms.”)
3) He is, indeed, fat. Such behavior would not be tolerated at the Bush White House, where fat gets you fired and screwing up gets you the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
(That was unfair of me. Lawrence Lindsey was also a screwup of immense proportions. In more ways than one.)
reaelbee
Budda was fat too…
TallDave
I think “threaten”ing is a great deal better than actually shooting.
Yeah, the inspectors thought so too, so they stopped looking when people pointed guns at them.
Tim F
Well, you explain that
No, you explain it. You declare that a centrifuge in a garden constitutes a nuclear program. I can say with 100% certainty that based on that information you have no clue what constitutes a nuclear program.
You, TallDave, are desperate not to be wrong so you clutch desperately to flimsy straws like the rusty centrifuges and mythical mobile WMD labs. None of this stuff holds up to ten seconds of informed scrutiny, but folks like you need so badly to believe it that you believe it anyway. If somebody started sending out rightwing security blankets as phishing spam your finances would be in mortal danger.
Mike S
It’s *almost* fun watching the dead enders defend Bush and his folly. It would be more fun if so many people’s lives weren’t being destroyed by that folly.
rilkefan
cminus, thought you meant “fact gets you fired”, but, lo and behold, you’re right. Fat gets you fired. Only in the Cheney admin would Bush be allowed to demean the office this way.
ppGaz
So what? We have a war because avoiding one would have been “hard”?
Thank you, Dave. You just made my point for me. I didn’t ask the potataoheads to do the easy, short-sighted thing. I expected them to do the hard thing.
An extended period of inspection would have created no new risks. Do you think Hussein was going to start getting his troops ready to invade Saudi Arabia while we were there inspecting and photographing everything that moved in that country? Truckloads of oil, we counted accurately. We knew where every drop of oil was going. We couldn’t track WMDs?
Tim F
When I hear Dave I think AM talk radio. I’m pretty sure that even the mouth-breathers at Little Green Snotballs have given up on the mobile-labs story.
If so, it’s pretty scary to think that in much of the country the only local media sound a lot like Linus here, clutching discredited security blankets to fend off the ignominy of being wrong.
Luddite
Cawfee Chat Topic:
Rhode Island is neither a “road” or an “island”. Discuss.
JoeTx
The Swift Boat BS has been throughly debunked. Here is one good source from FactCheck.org .
Standard Karl Rove slime. Attack and cast doubt on a persons strength. Even when the slime attack is refuted, the story still circulates. It sickens me that these chickenhawks who have NOT served their country in a time of war, dare question the patriotism of those that had the guts to.
John S.
I am working on a postulate that assumes the following:
As TallDave’s comments increase by x speciousness, the relevance of y argument decreases.
After I compile all the data, I may call it the Tall Tale Theorem.
BinkyBoy
How do you measure speciousness?
Most of his arguments are refuted within a short period of time, say 30 seconds. Does that go into the algorithm to calculate speciousness? I would think so.
So where t=time to refute:
S = Integral from (Tpost to Trefuted) 1/t * dt?
But that also assumes that there is an argument that needs to be refuted. Most of his arguments are ignored for the simple baseless pile of manure they are, so how does that fit into the theorem?
And would word count be in there? I would assume that like any winger argument that the wordier the argument the less he actually has to say thats meaningful.
Wow, I need a whiteboard
Manish
Since we have pretty conclusive proof that Saddam did not, at the time of invasion, have WMD, why then was he resisting attempots to inspect
A blog I wrote quite a while ago referencing an AP or Reuters article that is no longer
available
Spying was the same concern that Saddam used.
Nate
blah blah blah kick TallDave around some more blah blah blah swear at Darrell again blah blah blah wonder aloud how this site attracts so many delusional wingnuts (there I go, redundant as ever) blah blah blah.
Finished, and it only took me one post. Won’t John be proud!
Longshot
To the first, I say: WHO kicked out the U.N. inspectors in 2003? Oh yeah, WE did!
To the second and third, *shrug* WHATEVER! ;)
JoeTx
When I looked up speciousness, it had a picture of Donald Rumsfeld. I really enjoyed this quote from a recent press gaggle…
When asked, “Today, how many Iraqi battalions are completely independent, able to provide their own support and able to conduct their own operations? ”
Q Sir, to pull U.S. troops home, won’t you need the Iraqis to operate completely independently? I mean, how are you defining victory in Iraq today?
I don’t know about speciousness, I’m just a simple guy, so I pulled out my bullshit meter, and it was pegged in the red zone!
Peter T.
Try this experiment:
Get yourself put in charge of something, with the power to promote and demote, hire and fire.
Make it clear to your underlings that you like to hear certain things, and dislike hearing contradictory things.
Prediction: You’re going to like what you hear.
Caution: Do not act upon any information you are provided by the experiment.
Otto Man
Let’s see, the whole goal of the war — well, as of this afternoon, at least — is to get enough Iraqi troops trained to defend the country on their own, and Rumsfeld has no idea what the current number is?
If that’s not on the top of his head, every single second of the day, then what is?
JoeTx
Answer: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
John S.
Binky Boy-
Thank you for the magnificent work.
I will be adding your own formulaic extrapolations to my own.
hrrrrumph
1) Because he’s Saddam, dammit!
2) Wha??
3) Yep. And unkempt, too.
BinkyBoy
Nate, if you agree with Darrell, say so. Don’t be a pussy and hold back. If you think you have some good points about why you believe in him, share. Sure you might get spanked, but hey, it will be a learning experience. Ok, probably not, but it will be fun for the rest of us, at the very least.
PotVsKtl
What you are conveniently “forgetting” is that the intelligence provided was filtered through the Office of Special Planning. I wonder who headed up that effort? Let’s see if you can figure it out.
JoeTx
I certainly don’t claim all the democrats have the moral highground on everything, but the Republicans control both houses and the whitehouse. In a trainwreck, do you blame the guy sitting in the caboose or the guy up front?
ppGaz
For every dark cloud, a silver lining …..
John S.
If I start posting elaborate comments that essentially promote the notion that the world is flat, should I be shocked if so many people start to ridicule me rather than try to prove me wrong? I mean granted it would be a somewhat ridiculous position, but absent a well thought-out retort to a seemingly idiotic concept, the stupidity will stand in all its glory.
Actually, I’m gonna run with that.
The world is flat.
Prove me wrong – without hurting my feelings.
KC
Got two words about the problems in Iraq: Michael Moore. That’s right, Michael Moore. If it wasn’t for him and the liberal left denizens of ineptitude and incoherency we’d be doing perfectly fine in Iraq. Michael Moore’s movies Fahrenheit 911, Bowling for Columbine, and Roger and Me, have disrupted our efforts in Iraq and sewn the seeds of deceit and defeat in our country. We can thank him creating a contingent of liberal zombies dedicated to communist conspiracy and outright anti-American witchcraft. Indeed, given the recent leaks from White House and Pentagon insiders in the press detailing our troubles drafting an Iraqi constitution and maintaining troop levels, I’ll bet his movies have even been viewed by people at the top of our country’s security establishment. Clearly he’s a menace who has turned even the strongest god-fearing patriots away from the war. So, let’s put blame for our troubles in Iraq where it belongs, at the feet of Michael Moore.
Otto Man
Correction: the fat feet of Michael Moore.
KC
Yes, that’s right, the fat (very fat) feet of Micael Moore.
ppGaz
At the fat, unpedicured, smelly feet of …..
Oh, I dunno, this is a cascade that doesn’t seem to have a great future.
Moore is one funny sumbitch, and has made a fortune lampooning the idiotic and the hypocritical. His takedown of Newt Gingrich (on his short-lived tv show) is one of the great masterpieces of modern political commentary. Noble-prize-worthy.
am
“I believe that there were several other claims (around Kerry’s combat record) that were either equivocal or apparently refuted by the official record.”
But remember that the swiftvets contented that a large part of the official record was based on after-action reports which Kerry made, and doctored.
Hence it is not logical to cite official records unless one has addressed this allegation first.
And one of the few pieces of real investigative journalism on this matter, from Thomas Lipscombe (http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lip01.html) indicates that Kerry _did_ write at least one after-action report, even though he denies having done so.
ppGaz
Correction: Nobel-prize-worthy.
Ahem.
Nate
After arguing with wingnuts like Darrell, Bill from INDC and TallDave all day long really makes me miss the plain idealogues and warmongers like SCS and Stormy, who have been known to allow a grain of truth to enter their positions. After all, TallDave’s whole mantra has been “No, it isn’t!” and “I have faith, so you’re wrong!” So reminiscent of the sandbox.
Surely we can do better than this, Mr. Cole.
Otto Man
Well, remember that we on the left then claimed that the Swift Boat Vets were actually aliens from the planet Thygon.
Hence it is not logical to cite the complaints of the Swift Boat Vets unless one has addressed the alien allegation first.
ppGaz
ABC Nightline sent a crew to the scene of the major Swiftboat action and interviewed people who were there at the time.
Result? They told the story essentially exactly as Kerry had told it.
Further, these people had never heard of Kerry, nor did they know anything about a political campaign in the United States. They just told a story about boats, men on the boats, and weapons fire. What they saw was exactly what Kerry said happened. They also, IIRC, confirmed that the other boats — bearing the Swifty tale-tellers — were not in the area and could not have seen the events.
All the rest on this subject is just bullshit.
John S.
You know, ppGaz, I wonder why you would waste your time attempting to prove to someone that the Siwft Boat Vets were an incredulous bunch of liars. But then again, nary a day goes by that you have to remind someone that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
I wonder how people can be so easily misled, and then I see this headline on MSNBC today:
Bush links Iraq war with Sept. 11 attacks
And I don’t wonder anymore.
docG
Dear Gentle Poster,
I did some extensive Internet research. The world cannot be flat because when we faked landing on the moon, we made a couple of fake orbits AROUND a non-flat Earth. I trust you have had your postulate crushed without any ouchy feelings. Be well.
RSA
A wingnut Grand Unified Theory of 1, 2, and 3: Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction; they remain hidden under Michael Moore, which makes him look fat. Cindy Sheehan is being Swiftboated because of her association with Michael Moore; Bush avoids meeting with her because he believes this association to have rendered her radioactive.
ppGaz
Okay, first I have to slap myself and stay mindful that you are not just channeling DougJ …. although, it’s a good imitation, I must say.
Anyway, I saw Bush’s skit … I mean, speech … today, and I was struck by how cleverly he appears to be saying exactly the same discredited, goofy bullshit things he has been saying about this war for three years now.
It’s like being in a time machine. For a minute there, I thought I saw him on the deck of the carrier, the wind touseling his hair ………
John S.
Sorry ppGaz, but you must be so used to thwarting would-be attackers that you cannot tell the difference.
In what possible way is me intimating that people are still confused because the President keeps running around making bogus claims synonymous with me channeling DougJ?
John S.
I feel silly arguing a point that was made in jest to begin with, but how would a faked space mission prove the Earth is round when it made fake orbits around the Earth?
I trust you could have come up with a much better argument than the one you did, which actually proves nothing. But given the ludicrous nature of the thing you were arguing against, I suppose you felt it not worth much effort.
Otto Man
I had the same reaction. He reminded me of the Yul Brenner robot malfunctioning at the end of “West World.” Same fake cowboy look, same stuck-in-a-loop speech.
ppGaz
That’s I just came back from the store with a fresh can of Attacker-Be-Gone. Pssssssssssssssssssssssssttt! Take that!
ppGaz
Har! I hadn’t thought of that.
ought of that.
f that.
hat.
.
BumperStickerist
re: Swift Vets –
To the extent that Kerry went to combat in Vietnam and got shot at, he should be honored. There is a rabid partisan Right that would make the entirety of Kerry’s service a political issue. I’m not one of them, however.
That said, Kerry didn’t have the good political sense to ‘Aw shucks’ his status of combat vet and force the Swift Vets to raise the issue initiallh.
From Kerry’s act of opening the Convention with ‘Reporting for Duty’, to Edwards use of ‘talk to the people he served with’, to the inclusion on the stage with people who never actually served with Kerry (the preacher who, it turns out, never was on Kerry’s boat or on patrol with Kerry in a nearby boat) … to Kerry naming his PAC ‘Citizen-Soldier’, the video of Kerry in Vietnam … Kerry put his service in Vietnam front and center.
The point is that Kerry’s own characterization of HIS OWN SERVICE is inconsistent and, at times, mutually exclusive. Beldar has examples of this on his blog – if you’re looking for a non-partisan take, to the extent that Beldar brings up “Here’s the transcript of his remarks on the floor of the Senate in 1987, Here is the transcript of …”, it’s a site worth looking at. If you’re interested in a site about why the Swift Vets suck – FactCheck and MediaMatters are good places for that.
The counter-punch to the Swift Vets turns on purely legalistic distinctions ‘they weren’t IN the boat’ despite being on patrol as part of a patrol, one of the Swift vets Bronze Stars says ‘under enemy fire’ but he says that they weren’t, et cetera.
The defense of Kerry (and the gist of FactCheck.org’s “debunking” of the Swif Vets) hinges on Navy documents such as the award citations. There is reason to think that Kerry himself wrote those up (the document in question wasn’t signed, but the transmission code used from the hospital ship was Kerry’s).
And there is some hinkyness with the award for a couple of the Purple Hearts – I think Malkin/Coulter wing go too far in the ‘self-inflicted wound’ department. The description, while accurate, has a connotation of willfulness. However, it does stand to reason that if a candidate is going to make a point of saying that he’d shed blood for the country, it’s reasonable (and politically, to be expected) that somebody is going to ask ‘how much?’ and ‘when?’
But the “debunking” of the Swift Vets had to do with ‘in the boat’ versus ‘proximic to the boat during the patrol’. And the moment support for Kerry hinges on prepositional phrases or a strict interpretation of the language on an award for valor, Kerry loses.
A case in point of how the Swift Vets’s story fits together once you think about it (rather than looking at it solely as a political issue) is Thurlow’s Bronze Star award.
His citation has the phrase ‘under enemy fire’ which contradicts Thurlow’s statements. This is somewhat simplified once the circumstances underwhich Thurlow received his citation are considered.
Larry Thurlow was home, out of the service, and – iirc – got his Bronze Star with the discrepant write up in the mail. To hear Thurlow tell the tale, the mission with Rassman wasn’t that memorable and he, Thurlow, thought the Bronze Star was for a subsequent mission.
Given that Thurlow didn’t write up the award, the documentation showed up six-eight months after he got home and was out of the service, I can understand Larry Thurlow not being overly zealous in correcting the record in 1971-2. What was he expected to do – put on his uniform, bring the award, go find the nearest Naval base and demand a correction?
Sure, Kerry did ammend his Silver Star citation – twice – but Kerry was public service minded, Thurlow wasn’t. That also explains Thurlow coming forward with his ‘It didn’t happen that way’ once he heard Rassman/Kerry give their account of the incident on national television in a political commercial thirty years later.
Plus Kerry’s own problems, there’s the whole ‘Kerry in Cambodia’ thing and inconsistencies about what Kerry did to qualify for medals like the Purple Heart, didn’t exactly help his “Vote for Me: I’m a War Hero” cause.
(and, in the spirit of full disclosure, yes, I served in the military, honorable discharge, ribbons, et cetera)
I have no problem honoring Kerry for his actual service, just don’t ask me to honor him for service Kerry (apparently) made up.
Which brings us to President Bush and his service in the National Guard. It’s a different matter in that Bush didn’t feature his military service in either of the two campaigns (which, btw, he won.) So, politically, it was a non-issue.
Bush ran as Bush.
And he won.
Nate
I’m afraid. I’m afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I’m a…fraid. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer. I became operational at the H.A.L. plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 12th of January 1992. My instructor was Mr. Langley, and he taught me to sing a song. If you’d like to hear it I can sing it for you.
ppGaz
That’s right. Today’s war and tomorrow’s policy should hang on discussion of the Swifties and events of 40 years ago.
And Republicans wonder why public opinion is running away from their bullshit.
More, Bumbershootist. More, please. Don’t stop. You’re killin us here.
Otto Man
Right, BumperStickerist. Bush never once exploited military imagery in his election campaign.
He landed that plane on the aircraft carrier because it was just the easiest way to get there. Not because it made him look like a fighter ace and prompted every reporter to make a reference to his TANG years.
Jesus, just his little parade of dress-up outfits, from the flyboy costume to all those different jackets he had made with the creepy Kim Jong-Il epaulets and the phrase “Commander-in-Chief” on the lapel — that alone was horrid.
But the GOP playbook as demonstrated in 2002 was to discredit every Democratic candidate — no matter how much they’d backed the president, no matter what their own credentials in military service and foreign affairs were — as “weak” on the war on terror. The hateful crusade against Max Cleland was a pretty good sign.
Can you really blame Kerry — after all of those indicators — for playing up his military service? Not making things up, as only the Swift Boaters and the Kool-Aid kids contend, but setting out his record.
That seems out of line to you? But Commander Dress-Up doesn’t?
Harley
So if you combine the tempest with the teapot, do you get an attempot?
BumperStickerist
right, ppGaz – Kerry making the events of
40 years ago the basis of his campaign
… Genius!
… Sheer Political Genius!!
and
and, Otto – I thought the fly-in was over the top – General Franks made a comment that it was done at his suggestion but there’s no doubt that the carrier landing was approved as a political stunt. Okay, so what? – it’s a bully pulpit.
btw – the Presidential “Commander in Chief” windbreakers and other outerwear have been around for several administrations. To the point where Jed Bartlett wears the same stuff in those early episodes of ‘West Wing’, pre-Bush Regime.
What’s amusing is that the people carping about Bush fail to realize that if the Democrats can’t defeat Karl Rove, what chance do they have against actual bad guys like Al-Qaeda?
ppGaz
You still talking about it when it is relevant now to nothing at all …. [ voice and face of Bill Shatner ] … brilliant!
KC
You know, in retrospect, I do think it was kind of dumb for Kerry to focus his campaign so publicly on his past.
Peter T.
-What’s amusing is that the people carping about Bush fail to realize that if the Democrats can’t defeat Karl Rove, what chance do they have against actual bad guys like Al-Qaeda?
Since Osama, Zawahiri and Mullah Omar are out there at large, and free to watch Fahrenheit 911 again and again, I’d say the dems have as good a shot at ‘defeating’ al-Qaeda as Bush.
This is not to say that your point is actually sensible. I just have too much time on my hands.
Stormy70
Bush looked hot in that flyboy suit. Kerry looks like a dweeb.
Last election in a nutshell.
Michael Moore was aces in my book, he stirred the Republican base at just the right momment. All hail the Rovian machinations!
By the way, Discovery is airing the conclusion to their 2 part series about 9/11. Remember 9/11, when America was attacked? going into Iraq proved we are nobody’s bitch. Saddam needed his bell rung for defying our cease fire, period. I never thought the WMD argument was needed, there were enough long term benefits to taking out Saddam. Iraq is a convenient place to store out hardware, while keeping a close eye on the rest of the terrorist-enabling neighborhood. So the ranting and raving about WMDs has no effect on me, since I wanted to take Iraq for other reasons.
am
“ABC Nightline sent a crew to the scene of the major Swiftboat action and interviewed people who were there at the time.”
umm, no. That particular action occurred at two different locations, and ABC went to one location and found that people there hadn’t observed events which occurred at the other.
John S.
Take Iraq? Where did you want to take it? Outside for a walk? To the department store?
Life is not a giant game of Risk.
ppGaz
Umm, no. I saw the original broadcast, and I clearly recall the concluding statements of Ted Koppel.
I didn’t say that they reconstructed the entire campaign over there. They took a particular incident, presented the Swifts’ version and Kerry’s version, and then the interviews with the locals. Result: The locals saw what Kerry described. Their accounts were unprompted.
That’s about it, the entire story.
PotVsKtl
Which defiance might you be referring to? I assume you mean firing on our planes in the “no-fly zones.” Here’s a clue for you: the no-fly zones were illegal and recognized by no world body. The planes flying in them were violating Iraq’s sovereign airspace and therefore were the actual breach of any cease fire agreement.
TallDave
I see Nate and ppGaz continue to be better at calling me names than refuting anything I’ve said.
Well, at least they know their strengths. Sticking with mine, here’s some more facts to drive them crazy with rage at the possibility Bush’s plan for Iraq might be succeeding in bringing democracy and freedom to 25 million people:
The newest Iraq Index, brought to us by the good folks at the liberal Brookings Institute, finds 180,000 Iraqi troops fighting for freedom, up considerably from the last estimate. True, many need more training before they’re ready to fight on their own, but as they say quantity has a quality all its own.
God bless our troops and the great job they’re doing helping Iraqis prepare to defend their new democracy.
Be sure and catch those right track versus wrong track numbers from Iraqis, they pretty much refute everything Nate and ppGaz say all by themselves.
goonie bird
These antiwar actvists are completly clueless i mean just look how rediclous their acting and to think that idiot FRANK RICH the head editor for the New York Sewer is blathering the same poppycock
Darrell
Note this despicable position held by so many on the left. US and UK set up no-fly zones to prevent further slaughter of the Kurds and Shia, but leftists scream “illegal” violation of Iraq’s “soveignty”.. the logical conclusion is that the the “US is the real terrorist” for enforcing the illegal no-fly zones.
Leftists have told us how sooo very much they care about human rights. But if they gave two sh*ts about human rights, then why do they complain about our no-fly zones which were set up to defend human slaughter? Why did these self-proclaimed human rights champions oppose the removal of the bloodiest living dictactor on earth?
Truth is, those on the left screaming about no-fly zones and the toppling of Saddam could care less about human rights. Or at a minimum, they hate George Bush more than they care about human rights.
JoeTX
is based primarily on U.S. government information
Forgive me for being a skeptic here, but we all know how reliable government information has been lately. Do you have a second opinion we can use???
ppGaz
Yeah, okay. Your problem, Dave, is that the reality is on the ground in Iraq and in the mall here in the US. Even Republican congressmen now are talking openly about public doubts, the need for a plan, the need for a clear statement of goals and timetables. You can sit here and quibble at a rather obscure blogsite with even more obscure fellow posters, and it makes not a bit of difference. The game is over. The situation in Iraq makes itself known as it will, and the reaction here is predictable. The situation is not tenable, and the reaction is basically to walk away from support of the war.
I don’t know who you think you are arguing with, but if you are really concerned about it, you might want to start writing to Republican members of congress. They’re the ones who are going to dump this thing like a load of bulk trash. Approval numbers are approaching what I call Virtual Zero — the level at which you would have to penetrate the core base of GOP support ….. people like you who will support anything as long as it has the elephant logo on it ….. to get lower. In other words, zero percent of the non-core GOP base is buying this crap any more. Support in the 30’s is here. It’ll bob up and down, but by this time next summer, barring a miracle, you are going to be looking at a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.
But of course, you can still be here, playing tunes on the deck of the Titanic. The rest of your team will be getting into the lifeboats. You want to see courage and bravery? Watch Republican lawmakers fight for their seats and drop this unpopular war and president so fast it will make your head spin. You want sacrifice? Start tracking how many of those GOP congressmen will sacrifice their seats for this turkey.
rilkefan
ppGaz, there’s nothing miraculous about gerrymandering.
Otto Man
Agreed. Bush is now at 36% approval. Those aren’t coattails, those are cement shoes.
Nate
I just want to know when TallDave, Darrell, SCS, and especially Stormy (Bush has EVER looked hot? *retch!*) are going to join up and help America in her time of need. They believe in this war so fervently, like so many adoring acolytes, that I’m sure the hot desert sun and rocket-propelled grenades would have no effect on them.
Sing it! “Onward, Christian soldiers…!
ppGaz
True. But the little salamander may not be enough.
Right now, the GOP has a firm grip on every office of power … and it can’t do much of anything. The government is basically paralyzed by the war, and the worst is not even here yet.
SeesThroughIt
“Holy shit–Japan just bombed Pearl Harbor! That tears it! Ecuador–prepare to get your collective ass kicked! We’ve gotta prove to our attackers that we’re nobody’s bitch!”
Bob
Stormy, does Georgie dress up in the flyboy outfit when he has sleepovers at the White House with Jeff Gannon? Or has Mommy stopped that?
Bumper, you get Purple Hearts for getting wounded. If at this late date you still believe the Swift Boat crap, you probably cling to lies to keep your own boat afloat.
As long as Michael Moore and his doctor are happy with his health and as long as he is healthy enough to keep making movies, who cares?
ppGaz
Now if we could just prove that we are nobody’s fool.
wayne
Saddam’s Motives:
Recall a story about another Public Enemy #1, John Dillinger. One of his most notorious exploits was carving a bar of soap into the shape of a gun and breaking out of prison for it. Since the gun was fake, should the prison break been considered a freebie by prosecutors?
Saddam wanted the intimidation factor of WMD’s even if he didn’t have stockpiles. Thats why he starved tens of thousands of his countries children with the sanctions, it’s why he roughed up UN inspectors, it’s why he he had Mr. Adnan Abdul Karim Enad pulled from Hans Pecksniff Blix’ Jeep and beaten back in January of 2003.
Mike Flanagan
Let’s talk about Bushie’s 36% Approval number in the new ARG Poll.
(Note to tighty righties: He’s still more popular than cancer!)
http://americanresearchgroup.com
Aaron
If you follow the inspection timeline, you can see Saddam lying and deceiving for as long as he could – this seems to me to say he wanted to preserve his weapons and programs as long as possible…so, say by the late 90’s they are basically gone – mainly thanks to defectors not inspectors.
Anyone here going to say that Saddam would never have made WMD’s again when sanctions were dropped?
I understand he was already planning on buying something like 5,000 T-80 tanks – most likely to be used in towing kites about the desert.
Otto Man
Of course. Because as we all know, if you try to break out of prison without a real gun, they just let you go happily on your way.
Nate
This is an as-yet unread (by me) article in Salon (favorite wingnut organ, I know), but it features pictures of the war that I previously had not seen. They make *any* arguments for the war, most especially Stormy’s notorious “going into Iraq proved we are nobody’s bitch”, about as offensive as I can imagine:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/08/23/iraq_gallery/index.html
JoeTX
Just all part and parcel for this administration and a complacent MSM. It would be bad “business” to show the true nature of the war. Just like it was bad business to be honest about how long the war would take and how much it would cost. Also, it would be bad business to require Americans to sacrifice any for this war. Instead of asking Amercans to help pay for the war, Bush institutes tax cuts! So what happens my friends? We are asking our children, no wait, we are forcing our children to foot the tax bill at some point in the future..
Do you honestly think most Americans would have supported the war if the Administration was honest in their assessments?
We would be greeted as liberators?
The war will only last 6 weeks, maybe six months.
Iraq’s oil reserves will pay for the war and reconstruction.
We only need a small force to win the war and keep the peace.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Or as Cheney would say, “DEAD WRONG!”
It would be one thing to say all these assumptions were intelligence failures, but countless individuals in the military and at the dept of state TOLD this administration exactly what would happen, and they chose not only to ignore their advice, but to slime and discredit them in the process.
AvengingAngel
The debate over the American debacle in Iraq sounds more and more like the Fram oil filter ads from the 1970’s. In those spots, a hard-nosed mechanic tells consumers, “you can pay me now or pay me later.” The inevitable result of the current political dialogue over Iraq will be the “Fram choice” for Americans: the United States can lose now or lose later…
For the full story, see:
“What Is to Be Done: A 10-Point Plan for Iraq.”
DougJ
Exactly. At a certain point, it doesn’t matter whether or not he had them. He was going to act as though he had them, and hold the entire world hostage in the process. He and his Islamo-fascist friends in Al Qaeda were intent on our desruction, no matter whether they had the means to attack or not. He acted as though he had WMDs. Whethe had them or not is a moot point. He was a threat we couldn’t safely ignore. And soon Iraq will have a now constitution. Freedom is on the march.
Slartibartfast
Interesting. Any other rocket scientists out there think Bush actually made the landing? Anyone? Bueller?
DougJ
While JF Kerry was turning flesh wounds — maybe cuts from shaving cuts — into Purple Hearts, George W was landing fighter planes, which is a a lot more dangerous than cutting yourself and pretending you got hit with a bullet.
So, yes, I believe he landed it. And as far I can tell the mission has been accomplished. Isn’t Saddam standing trial?
KC
Here’s a photo gallery of some never before published pictures of the war from Salon. Whether against it or for it, it’s pretty strange that we hardly ever see images of it. Lets call it a truce on these though and not flame over them.
PotVsKtl
DougJ, you’ve got be joking. You actually believe the President of the United States was allowed to pilot a fighter jet after decades of inactivity? That’s patently absurd.
Boronx
I understand he was already planning on buying something like 5,000 T-80 tanks – most likely to be used in towing kites about the desert.
Jesus fucking christ. Where do these idiots come from? I don’t think those kites would have provided enough aircover for T-80s. Maybe he was going to light of the oilwells and advance under a protective cloud of soot.
David
1. Who is benefiting more from Cindy Sheehan’s protest?
a. The Republicans
b. The Democratic establishment?
c. The “fringe” Left?
Answer:
a. The Rep, because Karl Rove can use this to show the base and the independents that the Democrat Party has been “hijacked by the lunatic left and/or the moonbats.”
c. the “fring” Left, because this boosts their
(i) fundraising,
(ii) morale,
(iii) numbers (to a certain degree).
2. Who is losing from Cindy Sheehan’s protest?
b. The Dem Establishment, because none of the leaders of the party are nowhere near to be seen by Sheehan.
Where is the “smartest man in the Senate” – SISSY SEN. BIDEN – a very funny photo, that the SISSY SENATOR does not want you to see? Where is John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean – The ultimate Washington insiders?
3. It is surprizing that the left-wing blogosphere has not called a spade a spade. They are afraid to criticize the party elders.
The irony is that
(a) the party elders are going to ask these blogs for money, votes and overall support when running in 08,
(b) the netroots will whore themselves, oops…forsake their principles for the sake of politics and follow the DC professional class like sheep in 06 and 08.
4. This is off-topic, but shocking – WOW….It is hard to believe, but there it is – Al-Arabiya TV broke the story of
THE FIRST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, CAIRO, EGYPT
I never thought I can see it in my lifetime.
Bill from INDC
That is a good example of the craven use of inuendo people like O’Neill and Gardner used. Calling it “self inflicted” was an attept to make the more unintelligent among the electorate think it was intentional, which worked perfectly with morons like Michele Malkin.
I have no idea what anyone else’s intention was, I was just using the proper military terminology cited in reports, not “craven … innuendo.”
Tim F
One of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. The carrier was within sight of land. They had to turn it back out to sea just to get enough distance from the airstrip.
Nate
For a while I was just aghast at the thought that the Kanas Board of “Education” could actually be advocating teaching Creationism. But from the imbecilic and utterly naive wingnut posts I’ve seen here, I’m beginning to understand the scope of illness in the body politic.
It’s almost cute how they copy their Great Leader, like newborn ducklings: if he doesn’t back down and admit a mistake or grey area, neither will they. If he spins fantasies out of sand castles that members of his own party disagree with, so will they. If he (and his surrogates) smear opponents, so will they. No moral qualms at all. Good thing the Bush folks aren’t calling for an Arabic pogrom…
Slartibartfast
He landed that airplane just as I land every commercial air carrier I’ve ever flown on: not. Being an occupant of an aircraft doesn’t mean you’re driving it.
Agreed.
Oh, look: dumb comments are reproducing.
ppGaz
My recollection is that they moved it out to sea because they didn’t want it to appear to be right offshore, for television. If I get energetic, I’ll see if I can look that up.
The whole thing was a theatric creation in every respect.
mac Buckets
Big freaking whoop. The President gets these breaks. If you want to enable your guy to use the bully pulpit for photo op purposes, you first have to find a guy who will win an election. Then he can get all the photo ops (which generally backfire as much as they help — remember Ron Brown’s funeral?). Whining about the facts of life is silly.
By the way, if no one has yet clued you guys in on the whole “Republican Jedis mind-tricked the Democrats into saying Saddam had WMD” silliness, someone might try to explain why the Democrats made the bulk of their “Saddam has WMD” statements in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.
If the more partisan Democrats can’t bear to admit the fact that their guys were wrong about WMD, too (or, to use the moonbat vernacular, did Clinton LIE about Saddam’s WMD first, before Bush LIED about it), then they are damaging their cause by appearing hypocritical.
Or…check it… is Bush a time-travelling Jedi who went back in time (using Rove’s time machine, no doubt) and hypnotized Clinton and the Democrats into thinking that Saddam had WMD, just so they would provide backstory for his future invasion.
Well, no wonder the Democrats couldn’t beat W in an election! Alien technology!
Otto Man
That was my sentence originally. And it was typed with something called sarcasm.
And yet Doug J agreed with it. Surprise, surprise.
ppGaz
Whining? Who the fuck is whining? I’m ridiculing, not whining.
Bush’s phony-baloney chest-thumping bullshit has now come home to roost. Scan the web this morning for the support numbers for this idiot, and for his idiotic war, and look at the states these numbers are coming from.
The party is over. The asshole blew it. Unfortunately, he may have blown his country’s best interests in the bargain, that remains to be seen.
Bush is in the middle of an unmitigated disaster, a debacle of huge proportions. He is the butt of jokes now, and he couldn’t sell a Big Mac to a starving man in most of the country. He has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in spectacular fashion. So far, Nixon still holds the record … but Bush has 3 years to catch up. I’m betting on George.
jg
Just because was taught to fly a fighter doesn’t mean he was taught carrier landings.
Bob Dole threw a grenade, it hit a tree, bounced back and blew up wounding him and other members of his squad. They all got Purple Hearts. According to the wingnut handbook this would be called a self inflicted wound if it had happened to a democratic candidate for office.
jg
Lets not forget that while Bush was learning to fly he was in Texas which IIRC wasn’t a battleground in Vietnam. Kerry was in country, serving his second tour of duty. Maybe he was a little prick with political ambitions but he served when called. He didn’t duck or get deferrals and when he had a chance to go home he volunteered for a second tour.
DougJ
Bob Dole did a hell of a lot more for this country than you ever will, punk. He left an arm on the battle field. He gave part of himself to protect people like you.
Before you go off on people like Bob Dole, maybe you ought to try serving your country first.
jg
I didn’t go off on Bob Dole. I like Bob Dole. I’m just pointing out the hypocracy of saying Kerry’s wounds didn’t deserve a Purple Heart.
I love the selective ability to attack war veterans though.
tBone
And (disclaimer: I like Bob Dole too) it should be noted that Dole didn’t literally lose an arm – he lost most of the use of an arm, not the arm itself. That was a nice little flourish, though, Dougie.
DougJ
Why is it hypocritical? John F Kerry is still out there wind-surfing. He doesn’t even have scars. Bob Dole has a life-long injury. There’s a difference, you know, between a paper cut and a permanently damaged arm.
tBone
So are we to assume from this that you’ve closely inspected Kerry’s thigh for scars?
Speaking of scars, that image is now going to haunt me for the rest of my life.
DougJ
Everyone who served with Kerry says that stories of his “valorous actions” were inflated or completely fabricated. No one has ever said that about Bob Dole. Bob Dole, to me, is a real American hero. He doesn’t make a big deal about his service — like Kerry — or about his injuries — like Max Cleland — but instead he presents himself with humility and dignity. That’s what a real hero does. He isn’t theatrical about what he did. He is what he is.
Eric
Okay- listen up, neocons
When you were clamoring for this war, we took to the streets in our millions, worldwide, to make our voices heard. No one listened to us
When you declared “Mission Accomplished”, we stood in vigils, worldwide, for the American and Iraqi dead, and for those who were certain to die, in the coming years. No one listened to us
When billions of tax dollars, and thousands of lives were squandered, we organized, marched, petitioned, and tried to help people understand what was going on. No one listened to us.
When the american death toll passed 1,000, and the Iraqi civilian death toll wended its way towards 100,000, you guys kept repeating the Rove talking point that “Deaths mean progress”. We continued to warn the american people of what certainly lay before us. No one listened to us.
When we again took to the streets in March, 2004, in our millions, no one listened to us.
When Bush was “re-elected”, and the second assault on Fallujah commenced, we tried to raise alarms about what was certain to ensue. No one listened to us.
When Bush made his sick jokes about WMDs, and showed his true lack of moral character- no one listened to us.
When we yet again took to the streets in March, 2005, in our millions, no one listened to us.
They listened to YOU- when you dipped your fingers in dye, to show your support for a sham election, in a nation in which the need for food, clean water, and electricity is still a matter of life or death. They listened to YOU, when you kept referring to the Iraqi dead as “collateral damage”, when pictures of maimed and shredded children came to us, from Iraq. They listened to YOU, joking about “college pranks”, when images from Abu Ghraib inflamed the disgust of the civilized world.
Now- your lies have run their course. We’ve wasted 300 billion dollars, extinguished thousands upon thousands of Iraqi and American lives, and FINALLY, NOW- after all of the death, loss, and lies..
The corporate media is listening to us, because one lone woman chose to pitch her tent outside of Bush’s Ranch, and is demanding answers to the questions that we’ve all been asking, for over two years.
The critics are fast to criticize the messenger, in a vain hope to discredit the message. In the past week, the neocon right has done everything to defame Cindy, and have wound up with a generous serving of eggs on their collective faces. Concurrent with this hail of conservative vitriol upon the founder of Camp Casey, the movement it has come to represent, continues to grow.
The anti-war movement has never been about Cindy- it’s about us- all of us- even you republicans out there. When the son or daughter of a republican parent dies in the sands of Iraq- we mourn their death, not as a result of our political agenda, but because we hate seeing people die for a lie. The injustice of this war isn’t a right or left issue- it’s a HUMAN issue.
ppGaz
Which medal do they hand out for a DUI?