• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Today’s GOP: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

Good lord, these people are nuts.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Eh, that’s media spin. biden’s health is fine and he’s doing a good job.

If you’re pissed about Biden’s speech, he was talking about you.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.

Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

Republicans don’t want a speaker to lead them; they want a hostage.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

T R E 4 5 O N

Just because you believe it, that doesn’t make it true.

A Senator Walker would also be an insult to reason, rationality, and decency.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

People are complicated. Love is not.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Forrest Gump Democrats- ‘Stupid is as Stupid Does’

Forrest Gump Democrats- ‘Stupid is as Stupid Does’

by John Cole|  December 10, 200510:52 am| 141 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

Once again, Democrats are furious with the Republican party for ‘misrepresenting’ them and portraying them as wanting to ‘cut and run.’ How has the GOP done this? By taking direct quotes from the DNC Chairman, the House Minority Leader, and the Democratic candidate for President and standard-bearer just a year ago and putting them over top of a person waving a white flag.

Rather than getting angry at their leaders for their ham-handed approach to Iraq and general lack of political acumen, Democrats are pissed at Republicans for doing what partisans do- use their opposition’s mistakes against them. Hell, even Harry Reid gets it:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is urging Democrats to limit their comments on the future of the Iraq war to areas where there is broad agreement within the party in an effort to quell increasing concerns both within the Democratic Caucus and the minds of the public that the ongoing conflict has caused deep intra-party divisions. The Nevada Democrat’s move came in the wake of recent message miscues by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.).

And the idea that these words from Nancy Pelosi, Dean, and Kerry wouldn’t come back to bite them is absurd. Just the other day, well before this ad was released, I wrote the following in a post titled “Democrats Fear Backlash“:

Of course they fear a backlash- running around telling the country we should immediately withdraw, that we have no chance of winning, and that we are ‘terrorizing’ innocent Iraqis generally does not engender the public with positive feelings, particularly during wartime.

In other words, I put those three statements together all by my lonesome, and either the GOP HQ is reading my website, or other people are putting together all of the statements by Democrats and not liking what they see. The Bull Moose observes:

The Moose offers some tough love for the donkey.

There is only one force that can save the Republican Party and it is called the Democratic Party. The truth of that axiom has been reinforced over the past three weeks. When the President was plummeting in the polls, the Democrats came to the rescue. Rather than calling for a success strategy in Iraq, the donkey opted for pessimism and defeatism. The Democrats overreached and now the President is rebounding.

Perhaps, Karl Rove will send Leader Pelosi, Chairman Dean and Leader Reid nice Christmas ornaments. They earned them.

And now, some in the party, incredibly including the Senate Minority Leader are making it inhospitable for their former Vice Presidential standard bearer, Joe Lieberman. Here’s some news for them – they are not only telling Joe that the Democratic Party does not have room for his views, they are also communicating to millions of Americans who might support this war or not, but find defeat unacceptable, that they are not welcome in this exclusive political club. There are some progressive hawks in this country, but it is unlikely that they will pull the Democratic lever with the message that it is being sent by the leaders of the party.

So there you have it. Half the Republican leadership is under investigation, the President is down in the polls and fighting an unpopular war, people think the country is headed in the wrong direction, and the Democrats best response is to help Bush.

The crooked party vs. the stupid party. Take your pick.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Lost Update
Next Post: All Your CellPhones Are Belong To US »

Reader Interactions

141Comments

  1. 1.

    Ancient Purple

    December 10, 2005 at 11:04 am

    The Democrats overreached and now the President is rebounding.

    Now THAT’S a bit of a stretch.

    How can Bush be “rebounding” when his poll numbers are still within the margin of error of the polls showing him in the mid to high 30s at best? Until he clears that, he is still a very unpopular president.

    That being said, I am willing to bet Bush will take a huge pounding if Rove is indicted, and I think we all know that is more likely to happen than not.

    As to your question about choosing between the crooked party and the stupid party, how about I reject your attempts at limiting my choices to the two and vote based on who I think is the best person for the job, regardless of political affiliation?

  2. 2.

    John Cole

    December 10, 2005 at 11:06 am

    Bush is in the low 40’s now. Not good, but trending the right direction.

  3. 3.

    Tim

    December 10, 2005 at 11:07 am

    I don’t think two data points make a trend . . .

  4. 4.

    DougJ

    December 10, 2005 at 11:15 am

    Bush is in the low 40’s now. Not good, but trending the right direction.

    Keep your pants on. Low 40s is dreadful for a second termer.

  5. 5.

    M.A.

    December 10, 2005 at 11:16 am

    Yes, certain Democrats are very stupid for doing the right and moral thing and telling the truth.

    Politics is politics, and the Democrats will probably back off on this, but as John Judis pointed out in The New Republic, Howard Dean has been right about everything he’s ever said about Iraq, and it’s a sad commentary on the state of politics and the media that he gets in trouble for saying what is rather obviously true.

  6. 6.

    Grotesqueticle

    December 10, 2005 at 11:17 am

    I’ll take the “stupid” party, thanks.

  7. 7.

    ppGaz

    December 10, 2005 at 11:18 am

    Bush is in the low 40’s now. Not good, but trending the right direction.

    Wow. Ya think he is head back to 60%?

    Double wow. “The right direction.” I thought you said “the crooked party?” So, the crooked party gets a break … and that’s the right direction.

    Well, I guess a guy who teaches classes in propaganda (you said so) and frames everything in terms of the competing symbolisms involved, would see it that way.

    I don’t. First of all, I think Bush gets a bounce mainly because he has stopped hiding and come out where people can see him, and speaking up for himself. I think he’ll impress a few more people that way, and it’s a smart move for a president who is inclined to sulk when things aren’t going his way. Good for him. But he ain’t headed for general approval, and the coming year probably isn’t going to be filled with good news for him and his buddies. So I’m not getting to excited over it.

    As for the Dems, which is the party I sign up for, here’s the deal, John: The Dems in DC are mostly people for whom the rank and file — that’s me — have little regard. They are thrashing around because they have lost their groove, their tried and proved ability to snap their fingers and have their party line up behind them. The rank and file are not torn and confused. We are just sick of those mealy mouthed sonsabitches and giving them no love. We are ready to toss the lot of them, the Hillaries and the Obnoxious Joes (Biden and Loserman) and all of them. All of them who are more interested in their own fortunes than they are in what’s ultimately best for the country. Who act, in other words, like the Republicans do, greedy for power and ready to say or do anything to get it.

    Let ’em thrash. Ultimately, in my theory of all this, the people will have their way. All of these assholes, Republican or Democrat, will be out on their bums where they belong.

  8. 8.

    neil

    December 10, 2005 at 11:20 am

    How dare that stupid Howard Dean tell the truth about our country’s involvement in Iraq. The only way that it’s possible to defeat the corrupt party, after all, is to lie through your teeth to the American people. And of course, when it comes to Joe Lieberman, one need only look at how the Republicans have earned their success by rewarding their people for reaching out to the minority party and having the integrity not to punish those who denounce other Republicans.

  9. 9.

    John Cole

    December 10, 2005 at 11:28 am

    Fortunately for the country, you brave libs posting away here defending Dean for ‘being right’ and ‘speaking truth to power’ or whatever do not represent the majority of the country.

    Unfortunately for the Democrats, you do seem to be representing the majority of your elected officials.

  10. 10.

    SomeCallMeTim

    December 10, 2005 at 11:30 am

    A lot of this depends on the value of “victory.” If we’re saying that “victory” means success at the goals initially outlined by the Bush Administration (working multi-ethnic democracy), that’s gone. If we’re saying that “victory” means that we will arrive at a place that justifies the Iraq war (things are better than if we’d simply left well-enough alone), that’s gone. If “victory” means that we’ll leave things better than if we leave sooner rather than later, that’s still possible. But the only way we’re going to seriously address the last value of victory is if we dispense with the first two. And that means speaking honestly about our inability to achieve either of the first two.

    The Bull Moose is not, in fact, a Democrat. I believe he is officially an Independent. But he was a Republican, and he strongly wants John McCain to be President. He has, as per expectation, been given cover by the South-obsessed DLC to do his best to take down or weaken every other part of the Democratic Party, even at the cost of election losses for Democrats. It’s hard to overstate how offensive it is to see the Bull Moose in a Democratic cloister, even if it is a DLC-Democrat cloister.

  11. 11.

    ppGaz

    December 10, 2005 at 11:35 am

    Fortunately for the country, you brave libs posting away here defending Dean for ‘being right’ and ‘speaking truth to power’ or whatever do not represent the majority of the country.

    Unfortunately for the Democrats, you do seem to be representing the majority of your elected officials.

    What “majority of the country” would you be referring to?

    The one that doesn’t think the Iraq war was a good idea? The one that thinks that the Bush administration deliberately misled the people in the runup to that war?

    The one that voted for Al Gore in 2000?

    The one that gives Congress an “F”? That would be the Republican Congress, John. Wholly owned and operated.

    I’ve noticed that you often like to toss snide slaps at “speaking truth to power.”

    I’d like to know more about that. What’s the snide about? Do you think that bowing to corrupt power is a good thing to do? Are you for speaking truth to power? Something tells me you are. So why the snide? Why is there always a cognitive dissonance around here?

  12. 12.

    neil

    December 10, 2005 at 11:39 am

    John, when I compare your track record on the Iraq War to Howard Dean’s, you are a pretty consistent loser. You’ve fallen for all the lies along the way. Perhaps, now that you find yourself disagreeing again, it’s time to reassess the basis for your current position rather than assume that the other guy is stupid…

  13. 13.

    Richard Bottoms

    December 10, 2005 at 11:47 am

    Why even bother.

    We’re headed towards $450,000,000,000 spent on this fiasco, 3,000 dead, 20,000 wounded and a military forced to call up 40 year old single mothers to fill its ranks and John still can’t bring himself to say it was a mistake to go when and how we did.

    Better to celebrate the rise of Bush in the polls, as our CIC has obviously been bolstered by bashing Democrats in front of the very military men and women being fed into the meat grinder.

    Meanwhile our Secratary of State lies right to the faces of other leaders, our Homeland Security department hasn’t made us more secure and the wealthy skate on taxes.

    Plus religious fanatics drum up hysteria about Christian persecution, gays are demonized, and privacy rights continue to vanish.

    Foolish, foolish Democrats. How dare they lead the country so astray.

  14. 14.

    W.B. Reeves

    December 10, 2005 at 11:51 am

    This strikes me as pretty specious reasoning. Assuming that the current mild bump in the polls for Bush is more than a blip, a large assumption, can it actually be connected to anything the Democrats have said or done? Was there a corresponding decline in the approval numbers for Dems? Did either the poll or the respondents link this increased approval to the war policy, or was the economy or some other policy a greater factor? How much of this could be put down to the perception, right or wrong, that Bush was finally being responsive to criticism of his war policy? How do you reconcile the fact that the majority of the population no longer support the war with the idea that they’d rather stand pat than admit defeat?

    It’s worth noting that the Kos piece cited doesn’t buy into this analysis at all. It’s point, and indeed Reid’s, was not that the Dems should cease criticising the war but that they should speak with one voice and not propose any formal policy alternatives unless and until the President recognizes Congressional policy prerogatives. The Roll call article itself seems to indicate that the primary target of Reid’s remarks wasn’t Howard Dean but Joe Lieberman. Reid torpedoed Lieberman’s call for a bi-partisan war council. Hardly the action of someone fearing a pro-war backlash.

    Spin, spin, spin.

  15. 15.

    Ancient Purple

    December 10, 2005 at 11:54 am

    Bush is in the low 40’s now. Not good, but trending the right direction.

    I apologize, John, for not being more clear.

    Even the “low 40s” data points that were revealed this past week still fall within the statistical margin of error for his ratings in the mid to high 30s. Therefore, he may have an actual approval of 40% and then again he may have an actual approval of 30%.

    Until he clears the margin of error, his “low 40s” rating is pretty meaningless.

  16. 16.

    Emma Zahn

    December 10, 2005 at 11:56 am

    The crooked party vs. the stupid party. Take your pick.

    Isn’t it more like picking between

    The Stupid Party or the Stupid and Crooked Party?

  17. 17.

    Reid

    December 10, 2005 at 11:57 am

    As an Independent, I’m just wondering when the Democratic Party is going to realize that the concept of “addition by subtraction” may work wonders for a small business or a football team, but it’s killer recipe for losing a national election.

    All I’ve seen since Nov., 2004, is Dems booting people off their bandwagon.

  18. 18.

    Stormy70

    December 10, 2005 at 11:59 am

    It is a great ad, and it helps reinforce the fact that there is a reason the Dems are considered soft on National Security. I say, shout it to the rooftops if it is what you believe, Dems. I’ll be over here enjoying my tax cuts and purchasing more geek related items in the nice booming economy. Truth to Power!

  19. 19.

    Richard Bottoms

    December 10, 2005 at 12:02 pm

    >I’ll be over here enjoying my tax cuts and purchasing more >geek related items in the nice booming economy.

    Why not. There are those 160,000 other people fighting and dying for your right to par-ty.

    Not like true conservatives have to do anything like join up or send their kids over there. They just have to ‘support the troops’, not actually be one.

  20. 20.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    December 10, 2005 at 12:07 pm

    By taking direct quotes from the DNC Chairman, the House Minority Leader, and the Democratic candidate for President and standard-bearer just a year ago and putting them over top of a person waving a white flag.

    Ah hem…

    BUSH (on Today Show, 08/30/04): “I don’t think you can win [the war on terror].”

    What were you saying about direct quotes, John?

    I’m sure you would be fine with the Democrats putting Bush’s words to the back-drop of a white flag, as well?

  21. 21.

    W.B. Reeves

    December 10, 2005 at 12:12 pm

    I have to wonder about Stormy’s upbringing. Where’d she get the idea that posing as a mall rat Marie Antoinette was smart marketing?

  22. 22.

    Richard Bottoms

    December 10, 2005 at 12:13 pm

    >I’m sure you would be fine with the Democrats putting Bush’s >words to the back-drop of a white flag, as well?

    I think a coffin at a cemetary would work better.

  23. 23.

    Stormy70

    December 10, 2005 at 12:28 pm

    Not like true conservatives have to do anything like join up or send their kids over there.

    I wonder why the military and their families vote overwhelmingly for Republicans. Kids are not sent, they volunteer to go. Seems to me your attempt at the veiled chickenhawk argument seems hollow when so many Republicans are in the military. Just keep on believing all the little White Phosphorus lies, if it helps you keep your little superiority complex in place. I just recognize the Dems are growing more and more useless by the day with National Security matters.

  24. 24.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 12:30 pm

    Meanwhile our Secratary of State lies right to the faces of other leaders,

    Otherwise know as “diplomacy”.

    our Homeland Security department hasn’t made us more secure

    Did I miss a large terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11? They have a crap-load more to do, especially regarding the border, but saying they have not made us more secure is a bit much. They have done some good things, especially regarding first responders (I know that concerns response not prevention but it’s equally important), and some attacks have been prevented – possibly others we don’t know about. If you said it’s a bloated bureaucracy that wastes billions for minimal effect I would agree with you. But it has to some extent made us more secure.

    and the wealthy skate on taxes.

    The wealthy by far carry the largest portion of the tax burden. It’s called a “progressive” system for a reason. The poorest actually have a negative rate due to credits. Increasing taxes on the wealthiest simply incites them to work harder to find loopholes to pay less. I’m far from wealthy but those cuts certainly let me skate some. More please.

  25. 25.

    Richard Bottoms

    December 10, 2005 at 12:31 pm

    I did 13 1/2 years in the Army so I know whereof I speak. Not all of the military votes Republican. I dispised Reagan and Bush but I still did my duty.

  26. 26.

    Richard Bottoms

    December 10, 2005 at 12:32 pm

    BTW, it was Saint Ronald who cut and ran in Lebanon.

  27. 27.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 12:32 pm

    The crooked party vs. the stupid party. Take your pick.

    Damn. I’m actually going to have to ask you to spell out which is which. They apply equally to both…

  28. 28.

    W.B. Reeves

    December 10, 2005 at 12:33 pm

    I think a coffin at a cemetary would work better

    How about a string of Bush’s more luminous moments of war speechifying, beginning with “Mission Accomplished” and continuing with subsequent ‘victory is just around the corner’ moments? You could run them over a continuous loop of stock footage of such coffins being unloaded from Air Force transports. That would certainly enliven the discourse.

  29. 29.

    Stormy70

    December 10, 2005 at 12:33 pm

    I have to wonder about Stormy’s upbringing. Where’d she get the idea that posing as a mall rat Marie Antoinette was smart marketing?

    What? You are not a fan of a booming economy?

    I do love Howard Dean, though. And unlike certain Democrats, I hope he never shuts up.

  30. 30.

    MI

    December 10, 2005 at 12:33 pm

    I don’t really get people saying Bush said something defeatist, too, or Chuck Hagel said we’re losing in Iraq before Dean did. I swear to freaking god there’s nothing thicker is the entire universe than the collective political head of the democratic party.

    Seriously, how the heck can Dean’s comments not piss you off?!? Here’s the chairman of the Democratic party, saying we can’t win the war OUR TROOPS OUR CURRENTLY FIGHTING AND DYING IN TRYING TO WIN. And beyond that, forget what message it sends to the troops, I suspect our guys have thicker skins than we’re giving them credit for, but what message does it send to the Iraqi people?? Especially the ones on the fence about giving us the help we desperately need.

    One more thing, it’s not only what guys like Dean are saying, it’s what they’re NOT saying. Why can’t they give us a plan? a better strategy? There’s so little reason to have faith in the Bush admin, Americans are bursting at the seams for some leadership, some non-partisan, REAL non-partisan solutions to what we’re facing, they want adults, not the children running our country. They’re not finding it in the theocon, crook infested GOP, so as a nation we’re looking for an alternative, and what do we get? Howard fucking Dean telling us it’s over, we’ve lost, can’t win.

    I’ve defended Dean here on many occasions, but this is ridiculous. Fuck him, fuck this spineless, inept Democratic party.

    I’m in a mood, heh.

  31. 31.

    rilkefan

    December 10, 2005 at 12:34 pm

    Emma Zahn is right, though anyone calling Dean stupid for being annoyingly right on Iraq is petty at best. Or anyone calling Reid stupid for running rings around Frist, or calling Clinton stupid for being smarter than any Republican out there. Oh, and it’s not the Cheney/Rove admin any more – Bush is running things now – so we’re about to be treated to three years of unfiltered stupidity.

    Stupid and crooked – a combustible combination. Enjoy Bush’s statistical fluctuation + dead cat bounce while you can, John.

  32. 32.

    Otto Man

    December 10, 2005 at 12:39 pm

    Did I miss a large terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11? They have a crap-load more to do, especially regarding the border, but saying they have not made us more secure is a bit much.

    Well, let’s see how they’re doing:

    “Four years after 9/11 it is scandalous that police and firefighters in large cities still cannot communicate reliably in a major crisis,” said Thomas Kean, the Republican who was chairman of the commission.

    “It is scandalous that airline passengers are still not screened against all names on a terrorist watch list. It is scandalous that we still allocate scarce homeland security dollars on the basis of pork barrel spending, not risk.”

    The bipartisan panel, charged with reviewing U.S. security efforts before and after the September 11, 2001, attacks, produced its final report in July 2004, offering 41 recommendations. The 570-page, 14-chapter report concluded that a “failure of imagination” kept U.S. officials from understanding the al Qaeda threat before the attacks.

    More than a year after the report’s release, response to the panel’s recommendations has been inadequate, Kean and other members said.

    “On 9/11 [Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda] killed nearly 3,000 of our citizens. Many of the steps we recommend would help prevent a disaster from happening again. We should not need another wake-up call.”

    The panel’s report card gave the government 12 B’s, 12 D’s, nine C’s, five F’s, one A- and two incompletes. The A- was for tackling terrorism financing; the incompletes were for reforms under way for the CIA director and the terrorist travel strategy, due in two weeks.

    F’s were cited for the lack of an adequate radio band for first responders, poor airline passenger pre-screening, the “burying” of the overall intelligence budget within the defense budget, and coalition standards for terrorist detention.

    The report card gave an F to Congress for allocating homeland security funds “without regard for risk, vulnerability, or the consequences for an attack.” The homeland security funds are allocated according to population, meaning that an area facing a low risk of a terror threat gets roughly the same amount of funding per capita as a high risk area, such as New York City.

    As a result, funds are being misappropriated, Kean suggested, pointing to the use of funds to buy air-conditioned garbage trucks and body armor for police dogs.

    Yeah, sounds like they’re doing a heckuva job with homeland security.

  33. 33.

    Richard Bottoms

    December 10, 2005 at 12:41 pm

    I am quite happy with the Democrats who walk right up and kick the Republicans in the balls.

    Take you Terri Shiavo loving, abortion clinic bombing, homosexual bashing, reckless spending, tax cutting bunch and shove it.

  34. 34.

    Stormy70

    December 10, 2005 at 12:44 pm

    The 9/11 commission is not credible, at all. Must be missing all the media attention, with their so-called report card. As if a bunch of ex-politcos know what the hell they are talking about to begin with. Two words: Jamie Gorelick.

  35. 35.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 12:46 pm

    Yeah, sounds like they’re doing a heckuva job with homeland security.

    I didn’t say that. I said there was plenty of room for improvement and that it’s a bloated bureaucracy that wastes billions for minimal effect. But saying it has not made us no more secure at all is a stretch.

    BTW I lost all respect for that commission before they were even done their first report. They need to STFU and just go away. So sourcing them does not strengthen your case in my eyes.

  36. 36.

    W.B. Reeves

    December 10, 2005 at 12:46 pm

    What? You are not a fan of a booming economy?

    No. I just don’t think conspicuous consumption is anything to brag about, anymore than I think the size of a bank account is the measure of a person’s worth. Your reliance on economics to assert your superiority strikes me as overcompensating.

  37. 37.

    Stormy70

    December 10, 2005 at 12:46 pm

    I am quite happy with the Democrats who walk right up and kick the Republicans in the balls.

    Why? They just have to backtrack the next day. Something about the kick in the balls being taken out of context, we thought they were soccer balls, etc.

  38. 38.

    MI

    December 10, 2005 at 12:48 pm

    Then people on the right talk about our “booming economy” and I realize the only thing that rivals democratic political ineptness in sheer stunningness (new word!) is the republican’s ability to be completely disconnected from anything that begins to resemble reality for middle class, working class, and working poor Americans.

    I’m making it official and becoming an independent swing voter, I’ve had enough.

    Stormy, on a completelyunrelatednote, does the length of Sayid’s fingernails detract at all from his hotness??

  39. 39.

    CaseyL

    December 10, 2005 at 12:54 pm

    Yeah, sounds like they’re doing a heckuva job with homeland security.

    It depends on what the purpose of HS is.

    If the purpose is to strengthen the country’s defenses around possible targets – trains, planes, cargo ports, biochemical and nuclear arsenals – then I’d say we’re about where we were in 2001, with some incremental improvement in interagency communications offset by less security at the actual sites, thanks to dumb budget allotments, bad management, and understaffing.

    If the purpose, however, is to keep the country in a low-grade state of suspicion and unease, in order to gain support for domestic surveillance we otherwise would never agree to; and to channel money to crony companies, PACs, and individual members of Congress – well, then, I’d have to call the project a stunning success.

  40. 40.

    MI

    December 10, 2005 at 12:54 pm

    I’m a straight guy, so I’m not looking at him like THAT, but just in general I find them distracting. Like I’m watching his scenes and all I can see are his Freddie Kruger fingernails!

    Alright, I need to go shovel my driveway..you guys play nice.

  41. 41.

    Stormy70

    December 10, 2005 at 12:56 pm

    Your reliance on economics to assert your superiority strikes me as overcompensating.

    I mention it to drive certain high-brow posters, who hate all tax cuts crazy. How dare people spend their own money on silly things like DVDs and tech gadgets? Stupid conspicuous consumpters! I do it because there is always a lefty who despises all things so pedestrian as the Middle Class’s choice of lifestyle.

  42. 42.

    Stormy70

    December 10, 2005 at 12:58 pm

    Stormy, on a completelyunrelatednote, does the length of Sayid’s fingernails detract at all from his hotness??

    A third eye would not distract from his hotness!
    I too, must flee the boards and hang with the spouse’s familia.

  43. 43.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 12:59 pm

    the republican’s ability to be completely disconnected from anything that begins to resemble reality for middle class, working class, and working poor Americans.

    Both parties are equally disconnected. The dems mouth the words to get the votes but they don’t walk the walk. The system is self-selecting for people who have little connection to the average Joe. It takes millions to run a campaign. You have to have that kind of money or have access to it.

    Personally, I think it should work exactly like jury duty. You get picked and if you don’t have a very good reason not to, you go and serve for 2 years. The government pays you what you make now, or some minimum in the event you currently live in poverty. Your employer has to have a job for you when you come back. Your 2 years is up and you get your ass out of town.

  44. 44.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    December 10, 2005 at 1:01 pm

    The 9/11 commission is not credible, at all.

    LOL. Stormy, that can’t possibly be really you speaking. That comment is even too ridiculous for someone like you to utter.

  45. 45.

    Otto Man

    December 10, 2005 at 1:03 pm

    BTW I lost all respect for that commission before they were even done their first report. They need to STFU and just go away. So sourcing them does not strengthen your case in my eyes.

    And dismissing them certainly lowers you in my eyes. This isn’t some wild-eyed bunch of hippies, it’s Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, two of the more competent, moderate political leaders in recent decades.

    For the life of me, I can’t understand the conservative sniping over the 9/11 commission. We had commissions formed to look into Pearl Harbor within hours, and the JFK assassination within a day. But Bush and company stonewalled the creation and work of the 9/11 commission from the very start, and conservatives stood around and applauded their craven ass-covering like the 9/11 commission was the one who’d fucked up so royally and completely.

    Of course, maybe Casey’s right and I’m just missing the whole point of the president’s approach to Homeland Insecurity.

  46. 46.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 1:07 pm

    Stormy said it for me:

    Two words: Jamie Gorelick

    If that was not the biggest conflict of interest in this young century I don’t know what is. I won’t even get into Able Danger as it is too OT.

  47. 47.

    Ancient Purple

    December 10, 2005 at 1:07 pm

    The wealthy by far carry the largest portion of the tax burden. It’s called a “progressive” system for a reason. The poorest actually have a negative rate due to credits. Increasing taxes on the wealthiest simply incites them to work harder to find loopholes to pay less. I’m far from wealthy but those cuts certainly let me skate some. More please.

    Pardon me while I shed a tear for the top 1% of the people in this country who were on the verge of having to settle for a new Rolls this year instead of the Lotus.

    Bitter, bitter tears I would have shed for them all.

  48. 48.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    December 10, 2005 at 1:16 pm

    BTW I lost all respect for that commission before they were even done their first report. They need to STFU and just go away. So sourcing them does not strengthen your case in my eyes.

    Well that explains why you still think there was a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection.

    Not a fan of facts, eh OCSteve? You and Colbert would get along great.

  49. 49.

    Far North

    December 10, 2005 at 1:16 pm

    Shorter Stormy:

    9/11 Commission – not credible
    Democrats – not credible
    any criticism of Bush – not credible
    any criticism of Bush’s war – not credible

    Deep thinker, that Stormy.

  50. 50.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 1:22 pm

    Well that explains why you still think there was a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection.

    Not sure that has to do with anything or why you would attribute that opinion to me. For the record, I have not seen any concrete evidence that there was a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. I have seen plenty that Saddam supported terrorists in general. And that’s enough for me.

  51. 51.

    Mac Buckets

    December 10, 2005 at 1:22 pm

    Two words: Jamie Gorelick.

    The lost Mos Def lyric?

    Two words: United States, no love, no breaks, low brow, high stakes, crack smoke, black folks, Big Macs, fat folks, ecstasy capsules, presidential scandals, Jamie Gorelick!

  52. 52.

    Mac Buckets

    December 10, 2005 at 1:28 pm

    For the record, I have not seen any concrete evidence that there was a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection.

    The 9/11 commission said there was clear evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, just not as it related to the 9/11 attack.

  53. 53.

    W.B. Reeves

    December 10, 2005 at 1:31 pm

    I didn’t say that. I said there was plenty of room for improvement and that it’s a bloated bureaucracy that wastes billions for minimal effect. But saying it has not made us no more secure at all is a stretch.

    It’s only a stretch if you can make a convincing affirmative case. Can you demonstrate, concretely, the effectiveness of anything the Government has done to make us more secure? I’ve been searched on three different occaisions prior to boarding an airliner. Some of the 9/ll hijackers were searched before they boarded their planes. Didn’t stop a thing. What metric do we use to determine that searches are anymore effective as a tactic now than they were in 2001?

    Against this you would have to factor whether other Government policies have raised or lowered the risk of terrorist attacks on US citizens or interests.

    Saying the Government’s policies have not made us more secure might be an overstatement but no more so than claiming that they have done so.

  54. 54.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    December 10, 2005 at 1:31 pm

    The 9/11 commission said there was clear evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, just not as it related to the 9/11 attack.

    The 9/11 comission clearly stated there was no relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

  55. 55.

    Sojourner

    December 10, 2005 at 1:44 pm

    I’ll be over here enjoying my tax cuts and purchasing more geek related items in the nice booming economy.

    Stormy must be a more crass variation of DougJ. I cannot believe that anyone would really want to convey in public what a totally selfish and cold human being they are. If she really is such an ugly person, she must be a total moron for bragging about it.

  56. 56.

    Mac Buckets

    December 10, 2005 at 1:44 pm

    The 9/11 comission clearly stated there was no relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

    Thomas Kean has said repeatedly that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, just not regarding 9/11. Hmmmm, do I believe you…or the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission? Tough call. You do have a blog, after all, and he’s only the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

    THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: …Now, it doesn’t mean there weren’t al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years. They’re somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there. But with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that.

    …What the governor referred to is also true. There are all kinds of ties. There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein lieutenants.

    They had contacts, but what we did not find was any operational tie with respect to attacks on the United States.

  57. 57.

    W.B. Reeves

    December 10, 2005 at 1:49 pm

    I mention it to drive certain high-brow posters, who hate all tax cuts crazy. How dare people spend their own money on silly things like DVDs and tech gadgets? Stupid conspicuous consumpters! I do it because there is always a lefty who despises all things so pedestrian as the Middle Class’s choice of lifestyle.

    Can’t say I’m surprised that you prefer low brow to high brow. What this prejudice has to do with anything is unclear. Do you often imagine that you know what other people are thinking? Or do you believe that fantasizing is a reasonable substitute for thought? Your Monarchical fixation seems to be getting out of hand. Now you’re presenting yourself as the apotheosis of the “middle class”. What’s at issue isn’t the behavior of the “middle class” but your behavior. I know lots of middle class folks. They don’t waste their time bragging about how much stuff they have because they don’t feel the need to prove anything.

  58. 58.

    DougJ

    December 10, 2005 at 1:50 pm

    I can’t believe you jack asses are still talking about Jamie Gorelick.

  59. 59.

    Otto Man

    December 10, 2005 at 1:56 pm

    Here’s the headline to the link Mac Buckets offers:

    9/11 commission: No link between bin Laden and Saddam

    And here’s the full quote, without Mac’s careful ellipsis. (You might have wondered who Tom Kean was referring to “the governor.” It’s actually a reference to Kean. Mac mangled the quote and put Lee Hamilton’s words in Kean’s mouth.)

    CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This is a development a lot of people will find clarifying is that there was no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

    THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, that’s what our staff has found. Now, it doesn’t mean there weren’t al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years. They’re somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there. But with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that.

    MATTHEWS: Mr. Hamilton, so many polls have been taken that shows the American people, almost three-quarters of the people, believe there was a connection. How do we rectify that? Is your commission going to clarify that to the extent that people won’t still be singing country music that says “remember how you felt?”

    LEE HAMILTON, 9/11 COMMISSION VICE CHAIRMAN: All we can do is state as clearly as we can what the evidence is that we have found. We have found no operational collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden with regard to attacks on the United States. That conclusion is a very firm one that we have reached.

    When the administration pushed the Iraq-al Qaeda connection, it was done to imply that there was Iraqi involvement in 9/11 specificly. As the 9/11 Commission notes, that’s absolutely false.

    But that’s just an oral interview. Here’s a review of their findings:

    The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.

    Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein’s government and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was “overwhelming.”

    But the report of the commission’s staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation.

  60. 60.

    DougJ

    December 10, 2005 at 2:05 pm

    Next time I find a good place to spoof I’m making up some story about Aaron Broussard’s and Jamie Gorelick’s plan to funnel Katrina aid to Al Qaeda.

  61. 61.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    December 10, 2005 at 2:14 pm

    Thomas Kean has said repeatedly that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, just not regarding 9/11.

    Thomas Kean did not even say that he said “They’re somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there.” That is not the same as saying there were ties betweeen the two.

    And unfortunately, for you at least, Thomas Kean speaks only for himself. The actual report clearly stated there was no collaborative relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam. So you can pick and choose what one member thinks, I’ll take consensus of the entire report.

  62. 62.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 2:15 pm

    It’s only a stretch if you can make a convincing affirmative case. Can you demonstrate, concretely, the effectiveness of anything the Government has done to make us more secure? I’ve been searched on three different occaisions prior to boarding an airliner. Some of the 9/ll hijackers were searched before they boarded their planes. Didn’t stop a thing. What metric do we use to determine that searches are anymore effective as a tactic now than they were in 2001?

    First of all I “honor the threat” and take the terrorists at their word. That leads me to believe that if they had had any opportunity to cause mayhem they would have. It doesn’t take a mushroom cloud over NY to cause us great harm. It’s the xmas shopping season (and 4 before this one since 9/11). All they would need to do is get 10 whackos in the country and get them arms. Every 2 – 3 days hit a big mall somewhere in the country. Maybe they get away, maybe they get their 72 raisons. But within a very short time they would cause serious economic harm. Amazon would have block-buster profits, but brick and mortar would have their worst season since the depression. This is not an expensive operation. 10 plane tickets to Canada and/or Mexico. Our borders are a joke. Buy the weapons at the nearest gun show. Some rental cars. That is all it would take.

    So why hasn’t it happened?

    Airplanes are a different story. You seriously believe that up-armoring cockpit doors and arming pilots is no deterrent? I agree the searches (more importantly the PC BS refusal to profile) are not effective. With the right training you can easily kill without any weapon at all. They haven’t taken another plane because we now have armored cockpit doors, better procedures about opening that door, armed pilots, and more FAMs. If they got through all that then the passengers themselves will deal with them.

    I will agree with anyone that they need to do a lot more – but I can’t agree they have done no good at all.

  63. 63.

    ppGaz

    December 10, 2005 at 2:17 pm

    Stormy, that can’t possibly be really you speaking

    Heh. Who else could it be?

    When a Stormy says something like that, the result is that I am faced with a choice:

    Listen to the findings of the commission, or listen to Stormy.

    Stormy, poster child for the big-haired Texas woman who drinks, posts, and wants to “light up” Palestine because all the “good people have left.”

    Yep, her credibility is right up there with me. So when she says something like that, why, I sit up and pay attention.

    Ya gotta wonder, WTF are these Bushmonkey types thinking?

    Really. No wonder DougJ can so easily ridicule them by sounding exactly like them.

  64. 64.

    ppGaz

    December 10, 2005 at 2:18 pm

    So why hasn’t it happened?

    Because we captured their leader, Saddam?

  65. 65.

    Sojourner

    December 10, 2005 at 2:23 pm

    But within a very short time they would cause serious economic harm.

    As opposed to the damage being caused to the economy by this war?

  66. 66.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 2:39 pm

    As opposed to the damage being caused to the economy by this war?

    I guess you get your economic news from Krugman and the NYT. Every indication I see looks pretty rosy.

  67. 67.

    Davebo

    December 10, 2005 at 2:42 pm

    Shorter John Cole

    Sure Dean has been right in just about every statement he made prior to and during the war. Sure time has proved him right. Sure the American public is quickly trending toward Dean (but only Bush’s trends count apparantly). Sure I’ve been totally wrong on just about every Iraq prediction I’ve made.

    It’s losers like Dean who are right that keep superior minds like mine that are consistantly wrong firmly entrenched in the Republican party of the wrong.

    And a tiny, temporary, sliver of the majority stills listens to my crap and swallows hard!

  68. 68.

    Kimmitt

    December 10, 2005 at 2:43 pm

    Fortunately for the country, you brave libs posting away here defending Dean for ‘being right’ and ‘speaking truth to power’ or whatever do not represent the majority of the country.

    You’re kidding, right? The majority of the country wants us out of Iraq as soon as praticable, and “praticable” gets shorter and shorter with every day and every lie.

    Dean was right when he said capturing Saddam didn’t make us safer, and he’s right when he says we can’t “win” the war in (or on or through or beyond) Iraq. You can’t unshit a bed. One cannot make hard truths go away by attacking their articulators, as much as one might wish to.

  69. 69.

    Davebo

    December 10, 2005 at 2:43 pm

    Every indication I see looks pretty rosy.

    Heck, who could want more than year after year of record setting deficits? Deficits don’t matter after all.

    Dick, tell Greeney to shut the fuck up..

  70. 70.

    Davebo

    December 10, 2005 at 2:46 pm

    Mac Buckets deceitfully raping a quote with ellipses????

    Nah, couldn’t happen…

  71. 71.

    Sojourner

    December 10, 2005 at 2:46 pm

    I guess you get your economic news from Krugman and the NYT. Every indication I see looks pretty rosy.

    Yep, it’s simply fabulous.

    http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeat_econindicators_wages_20051028

  72. 72.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 2:47 pm

    Because we captured their leader, Saddam?

    Hey ppGaz – I was wondering where you were today :)

    No. I stated on this thread that I have not seen any concrete evidence that there was a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. He had plenty of connections with terrorists in general, but I won’t say he had ties to 9/11. And I won’t credit it to our (non-existent) border control.

    I’d give the most credit to the flypaper strategy. Next, I’d say we have disrupted their C&C enough to make it difficult to plan any op outside the ME. Finally I’d guess they don’t want to squander resources on smaller ops. They need to go for the big score to re-establish their cred.

    I do think they are working very hard on that.

  73. 73.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 2:52 pm

    Heck, who could want more than year after year of record setting deficits? Deficits don’t matter after all.

    I’m not happy that this administration spends money like a drunken sailor on their first shore leave in 3 months… But that’s really talking about the economy in the future.

    The economy here and now is humming along pretty well. Especially given the war.

  74. 74.

    Davebo

    December 10, 2005 at 2:54 pm

    I’d give the most credit to the flypaper strategy. Next, I’d say we have disrupted their C&C enough to make it difficult to plan any op outside the ME.

    Setting aside the fact that London isn’t a part of the middle east on my planet, you ignore the obvious.

    THEY DON’T HAVE TO OPERATE OUTSIDE THE MIDDLE EAST ANYMORE TO KILL AMERICANS

    As to your vaunted flypaper strategy, which oddly enough was deviced to fit a situation rather than address a situation, it seems Halliburton sold us some defective flypaper. As the Brits, Jordanians and others will attest.

    And of course you have to wonder how innocent Iraqi’s feel about your retroactive flypaper plan. Then again I serious doubt you’ve even considered it.

    Shut up Achmed and put your thumb in this ink..

  75. 75.

    ppGaz

    December 10, 2005 at 2:54 pm

    Hey ppGaz – I was wondering where you were today

    Same place I am every day. Sunny, warm Arizona, where the temperature is in the 70’s and we are wearing shirt sleeves and washing our cars. Where the sun feels warm on your face. Where we have a popular Democratic governor, and one very very ambitious Republican senator. Where we keep jackalopes as pets and eat cactus jelly on our toast.

  76. 76.

    Davebo

    December 10, 2005 at 2:56 pm

    I’m not happy that this administration spends money like a drunken sailor on their first shore leave in 3 months… But that’s really talking about the economy in the future.

    Spoken like a true piss on my back and tell me it’s trickling down Republican.

  77. 77.

    ppGaz

    December 10, 2005 at 2:58 pm

    I’d give the most credit to the flypaper strategy. Next, I’d say we have disrupted their C&C enough to make it difficult to plan any op outside the ME.

    Could you possibly understand any less about these people?

    Good lord.

    As for flypaper, exactly how does it work in terms of saying to th Iraqi people, oh by the way, we are using you as flypaper?

    That is just about the stupidest thing I’ve heard you say, and that is saying something, compadre.

    “Greetings, all you cute little brown people! We are using you as flypaper! We call it Operation Iraqi Freedom!”

    NO FUCKING WONDER THEY ARE TRYING TO BOMB US OUT OF THERE.

  78. 78.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 2:58 pm

    Same place I am every day. Sunny, warm Arizona, where the temperature is in the 70’s and we are wearing shirt sleeves and washing our cars.

    Oh man, I’m jealous. (Although I won’t be in July, can’t take that heat even if it is the dry kind).

  79. 79.

    ppGaz

    December 10, 2005 at 3:01 pm

    July in Southern Arizona:

    Whatever doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger!

  80. 80.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 3:03 pm

    Could you possibly understand any less about these people?
    Good lord.
    As for flypaper, exactly how does it work in terms of saying to th Iraqi people, oh by the way, we are using you as flypaper?

    I didn’t say it’s great they kill Iraqi civilians. It’s the terrorists that made that decision and it is backfiring on them.

  81. 81.

    ppGaz

    December 10, 2005 at 3:06 pm

    Uh, right, right.

    So here I am, Khalid, the Iraqi. My store has burned down. There is less electricity than there was two years ago. My brother and his family are dead. My country is is seeming chaos.

    I get on the Internet over at the coffee house, and there is this guy Mac, saying that we are part of the “flypaper strategy.”

    They are using me and my neighborhood and my family as flypaper?

    Kareem …. I give up. I join you … I join the insurgency. Fuck these Americans. What kind of arrogant, hideous people would do this to us? I will fight them. What do I do?

  82. 82.

    Sojourner

    December 10, 2005 at 3:08 pm

    The economy here and now is humming along pretty well. Especially given the war.

    Not for most wage earners.

  83. 83.

    W.B. Reeves

    December 10, 2005 at 3:11 pm

    What is the flypaper strategy other than a policy of placing certain Americans (the troops) where they can be hit more conveniently than consumers in the homeland? Lifeboat strategy is more like it. They should rename the war “Operation Human Shields”. Sacrifice is required to defend the freedom to buy $2 a gallon gasolene and purchase home theater systems on credit.

  84. 84.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    December 10, 2005 at 3:12 pm

    But that’s really talking about the economy in the future.

    Which is completely relevant when talking about the economy…

  85. 85.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 3:14 pm

    Spoken like a true piss on my back and tell me it’s trickling down Republican.

    It’s a valid point that a deficit has more impact on the future economy than the present one. I’m not happy about it, but I was arguing against the point that the current economy sucks – it does not.

    I don’t think the GOP would agree with you about my Republican creds. I hate the hard religious right that has infiltrated the party as much as I hate the MoveOn crowd. I don’t give a rat’s ass about gay marriage, or anything else 2 people do in the privacy of their home. I think abortion is a decision between a man and a woman. I think a feeding tube is a family decision.

    Right now, all I care about is winning the GWOT. In that light – you guys feel free to chew me up on that. But please – don’t call me a Republican :)

  86. 86.

    DougJ

    December 10, 2005 at 3:15 pm

    Next, I’d say we have disrupted their C&C enough to make it difficult to plan any op outside the ME.

    Unless you’re talking about their music factory, you’re full of shit.

  87. 87.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 3:23 pm

    Unless you’re talking about their music factory, you’re full of shit.

    It’s a little tough to plan ops when you are moving from one hidey hole to the next every day. Tough to get a group together with Predators circling overhead. Tough to use a satellite phone with the NSA listening and tough to use email with Carnivore munching on it. What percentage has their C&C been degraded? I don’t know but I am sure they wish for the good old days.

  88. 88.

    ppGaz

    December 10, 2005 at 3:23 pm

    But please – don’t call me a Republican

    Okay, good to see that you draw the line somewhere :-)

  89. 89.

    DougJ

    December 10, 2005 at 3:32 pm

    I don’t know but I am sure they wish for the good old days.

    Me, too. “Things That Make you Go Hmm” and “Everybody Dance Now” — they just don’t write them like that anymore.

  90. 90.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 3:34 pm

    Okay, good to see that you draw the line somewhere

    Hey – I do have some principles… Unfortunately you certainly can’t call me a Democrat either. I guess call me Independent but stuck voting Republican as the lesser of 2 evils. :(

  91. 91.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 3:36 pm

    Me, too. “Things That Make you Go Hmm” and “Everybody Dance Now”—they just don’t write them like that anymore.

    That’s just wrong dude.

  92. 92.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 3:42 pm

    Kareem …. I give up. I join you … I join the insurgency. Fuck these Americans. What kind of arrogant, hideous people would do this to us? I will fight them. What do I do?

    I am going to concede every one of your points here. But then I will be brutally honest and say – Yes – I would rather have it happening there than Cincinnati (not that I am particularly fond of Cincinnati). Make of it what you will – but if I am honest with myself that is the answer. Myself, my family, and my country are more important to me than anything happening in the ME. They made their bed. From their rulers, to their clerics, to the common folk who actively or passively support terrorism.

    Can you really say you would rather see it happening here than there?

  93. 93.

    Sojourner

    December 10, 2005 at 3:51 pm

    I don’t know but I am sure they wish for the good old days.

    You’re kidding, right? Bush’s decision to invade Iraq transformed Bin Laden’s wet dream into a reality.

  94. 94.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 3:55 pm

    You’re kidding, right? Bush’s decision to invade Iraq transformed Bin Laden’s wet dream into a reality.

    OBL’s wet dream was that we would either run away or respond with disproportionate force, thereby driving more Muslims to his cause. Neither has happened.

  95. 95.

    ppGaz

    December 10, 2005 at 3:56 pm

    Can you really say you would rather see it happening here than there?

    What I’d rather see is an American government that played it straight with its own people, and didn’t use terror as a political foil, and didn’t gin up wars on false pretenses, and cared more about me than about the legacy of yet another rich oilman from Texas, and didn’t pander to a lunatic fringe in order to gain power.

    But hey, that’s just me.

  96. 96.

    ppGaz

    December 10, 2005 at 3:58 pm

    we would either run away or respond with disproportionate force, thereby driving more Muslims to his cause. Neither has happened.

    So, there are fewer terrorists, and fewer who consider themselves Al Qaeda, today, than there were four years ago?

    Cites and references, please?

  97. 97.

    Davebo

    December 10, 2005 at 3:58 pm

    OC Steve

    Do you really believe the invasion of Iraq hasn’t driven more muslims to OBL’s cause if not AlQaeda specifically?

    Seriously??

    Really?

  98. 98.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 4:01 pm

    What I’d rather see is an American government that played it straight with its own people, and didn’t use terror as a political foil, and didn’t gin up wars on false pretenses, and cared more about me than about the legacy of yet another rich oilman from Texas, and didn’t pander to a lunatic fringe in order to gain power.

    While you did decline to answer the question… I’m on board with all that. I just can’t agree (all) that happened in this case.

    Notice (all) – I’m not saying I don’t think some of that did happen here.

  99. 99.

    Otto Man

    December 10, 2005 at 4:02 pm

    So, there are fewer terrorists, and fewer who consider themselves Al Qaeda, today, than there were four years ago?

    Cites and references, please?

    Sure thing. Here you go:

    The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

    Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers “significant” attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003

    Oh, wait. You were asking for stats that supported OC Steve’s assertion. I don’t think those exist.

  100. 100.

    DougJ

    December 10, 2005 at 4:02 pm

    Steve, are you really not familiar with the C&C Music Factory?

  101. 101.

    Otto Man

    December 10, 2005 at 4:09 pm

    Can you really say you would rather see it happening here than there?

    Of course not. But that’s a simple-minded false choice.

    The idea that our involvement in Iraq is somehow “containing” terrorism and preventing it from appearing here is ridiculous. Our presence in Iraq didn’t do anything to stop the train bombings in Madrid or the subway bombings in London. This isn’t the Soviet army massed at the border. It’s a porous and scattered collection of small cells of terrorists, and no matter how much the president describes this in his simple-minded terms, it’s quite obvious that they can fight us both there and here.

    Which is all the more reason why this administration’s pathetic record on homeland security is a crime. They’ve doled out HS spending like usual congressional pork, giving Montana more per capita than places like NYC. Port security is still a joke, and there’s nothing to prevent a similar rail/subway attack here. Ultimately, the simple-minded here-or-there assumption has made us less safe at home.

  102. 102.

    Otto Man

    December 10, 2005 at 4:10 pm

    Steve, are you really not familiar with the C&C Music Factory?

    Wasn’t that where Rumsfeld insisted Saddam’s nuclear program was based?

  103. 103.

    ppGaz

    December 10, 2005 at 4:12 pm

    While you did decline to answer the question

    Questions are not valid just because you ask them.

    For example “Have you stopped beating your wife?” is not a valid question just because it is asked.

    Rather than answer a question that is based on a false assumption, I answered the valid implied question instead.

    Would I rather see a hideous, immoral war waged on an innocent country as opposed to …. what?

    The two things are not connected. Never have been. The war in Iraq is no more directly connected to 911, say, than the Gulf War was. If we are really interested in preventing 911s from happening, we do not go looking for countries to invade. We do other, smarter things.

    But first, before we can do that, we have to stop lying to our own people that these idiotic things we are doing are making them safer, because they are not. The fact that we haven’t had another 911 does indicate that we are safe, any more than we were “safe” on September 10, 2001, because there had not been another attack on the WTC. Yet.

  104. 104.

    ppGaz

    December 10, 2005 at 4:13 pm

    does indicate –> doesn’t indicate

  105. 105.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 4:20 pm

    Steve, are you really not familiar with the C&C Music Factory?

    I am – that’s why I said it’s just wrong :)

  106. 106.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 4:24 pm

    Rather than answer a question that is based on a false assumption, I answered the valid implied question instead.

    I’m going by the terrorist’s public statements. I’m not looking for deeper meaning there – just taking them at face value and believing they mean what they say. Honor the threat. With that in mind, I ask would you rather fight them there or here?

  107. 107.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 4:27 pm

    The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures…

    International attacks. How about the Homeland?

  108. 108.

    Otto Man

    December 10, 2005 at 4:37 pm

    International attacks. How about the Homeland?

    You presented a here-or-there dichotomy. If you don’t realize the bombings in Madrid, London, and the rest blow that fiction away, I can’t help you.

  109. 109.

    Davebo

    December 10, 2005 at 4:38 pm

    International attacks. How about the Homeland?

    Well, we’ve had two homeland terrorist attacks so far this century. And note that neither attacker has been brought to justice (did we just give up on the Anthrax attacker or what?).

    If we go by history, the next big attack on the Homeland should have come in 2004 and have been committed by a US Veteran pissed off at the government for his own reasons.

    Since we’ve apparantly gotten better at preventing homegrown terrorism however, we shouldn’t be do for another attack until 2009 or so.

  110. 110.

    skip

    December 10, 2005 at 4:38 pm

    “unfortunately for the Democrats, you do seem to be representing the majority of your elected officials.”

    Wow. GW regains 4 poll points and we are suddenly “on the right track.” That must mean Clinton (63%) was REALLY on the right track when he was being impeached.

    Hope springs eternal. The last throes are at hand.

  111. 111.

    Sojourner

    December 10, 2005 at 4:42 pm

    OBL’s wet dream was that we would either run away or respond with disproportionate force, thereby driving more Muslims to his cause. Neither has happened.

    Beep. Wrong answer. Try again.

    OBL’s wet dream involved two things (as he himself said): 1. further evidence that the US was waging war on Islam and 2. the US waging war to the point of bankruptcy.

    Both are well on their way to coming true. An unprovoked war and an out-of-control deficit.

  112. 112.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 4:44 pm

    You presented a here-or-there dichotomy. If you don’t realize the bombings in Madrid, London, and the rest blow that fiction away, I can’t help you.

    I have already stated on this thread what is most important to me is Myself, my family, and my country. So no attack here counts as a win for me.

    Madrid and London, for some reasons we are also headed towards (lax immigration, open borders) – well, it was inevitable.

  113. 113.

    OCSteve

    December 10, 2005 at 4:46 pm

    Thanks guys. I feel like the guy in the Monty Python skit who went to buy an argument. In this case I got my money’s worth :)

  114. 114.

    W.B. Reeves

    December 10, 2005 at 4:47 pm

    I’m going by the terrorist’s public statements. I’m not looking for deeper meaning there – just taking them at face value and believing they mean what they say. Honor the threat. With that in mind, I ask would you rather fight them there or here?

    You’re missing the point. Your question is meaningless. We don’t have the option of fighting them “there” instead of “here”. If you really believe this nonsense I suppose we should disband Homeland Security, since fighting them “over there” precludes having to fight them “here.” I don’t think you’ll go that far. The fact is that the U.S. remains under the threat of terrorist attack within its borders. It is also a fact that it can’t be demonstrated that the Iraq adventure has lessened that threat one iota.

    International attacks. How about the Homeland?

    Just how long do you think the US can successfully follow a strategy that provokes attacks on its allies? Particularly if we take the attitude that it doesn’t count because the victims were’nt Americans?

  115. 115.

    ppGaz

    December 10, 2005 at 4:56 pm

    With that in mind, I ask would you rather fight them there or here?

    Just when you are on the verge of seeming rational, you go and behave like this.

    I told you, it’s not a valid question. Go annoy someone else.

    You can’t make it a valid question by asking it over and over again. See, that doesn’t change it.

    Which would you rather have? American values and American faith in its own government trashed by clumsy, stupid thugs who will exploit your fears for their own gain, or Saddam Hussein back in power in Iraq?

    Get it?

    Which would you rather have? A country where Americans are working together to achieve their common purposes, or global warming?

    See how this works? I can string any two clauses together and make it appear as if there’s a rational choice there, when there isn’t.

    Which would you rather have? DougJ, or Elinor?

    Tweedledum, or Tweedledee?

    Tastes great, or Less filling?

    Go away. You are annoying.

  116. 116.

    DougJ

    December 10, 2005 at 5:22 pm

    Steve, if you think the war is going on in Iraq but not in Cincinati, you’ve got it all wrong. The war is going on everywhere in this country, especially in poor areas. Twenty-one hundred of our young men have died in this war — that’s nearly as many as died in 9/11. I’m afraid that by the time we get out of Iraq, we will have had more deaths there than we had in 9/11. Another ten thousand have been severely injured. Some estimate that as many as 100,000 may suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Signing up for the military does not make your life worth less than that of a civilian.

    I don’t think you’re an insensitive person by any means. That’s why you shouldn’t say things like “it isn’t happeneing here.”

    If you want to argue that the war is worth 2100 American lives, 10,000 injuries, lifetimes of mental difficulties for untold thousands of soldiers, along with 300 billion dollars and a loss of prestige and influence in most of the rest of the world, you’re entitled to believe that. I am about 99% sure the war was a mistake and that the overall effect will turn out be bad. I am not completely sure, though, for I will admit that it is still possible that it will lead to the great flowering of Democracy that the neocons are always gabbing about. I doubt it, but I am not sure; unlike George Bush I don’t believe that God talks to me and tells me about the future.

    The only thing I know for sure is that this war has cost the country greatly and that it is, indeed, happening here.

  117. 117.

    Mac Buckets

    December 10, 2005 at 11:03 pm

    Mac Buckets deceitfully raping a quote with ellipses????

    My quote stands perfectly fine. The ellipses just made it shorter, although I did blow the change in speakers. Obviously, I wasn’t trying ot deceive anyone, or I wouldn’t have left in the “They had contacts, but what we did not find was any operational tie with respect to attacks on the United States” part, which I never disputed.

    It is a fact that the 9/11 commission said, and the Chairman still says, that there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda — just not in terms of the attacks on 9/11. I’m sorry you leftian freaks don’t dig history, but that’s your problem. Feel free to wallow in ignorance, but don’t try to drag me down with you.

  118. 118.

    John S.

    December 11, 2005 at 12:04 am

    Obviously, I wasn’t trying ot deceive anyone

    Of course, you play a clever little turn of phrase that lead the majority of us who see through your bullshit to think otherwise:

    It is a fact that the 9/11 commission said, and the Chairman still says, that there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda

    You know damn well there were no OPERATIONAL ties between them of any sort, which is the only kind of ‘tie’ that is relevant. Maybe Saddam’s people had coffee with Al-Quaeda, but that is hardly a basis to wage a war.

    Alas, a fool and his semantics are soon parted…

  119. 119.

    Kimmitt

    December 11, 2005 at 12:44 am

    They made their bed. From their rulers,

    Um, not a lot of elections in that area, not for a long time.

  120. 120.

    Sine.Qua.Non

    December 11, 2005 at 12:57 am

    I just graduated today with another masters degree, so I sure don’t want to get in the middle of this and say Dean is consistent (more so than anyone else in what he said about Iraq) and then have someone call me stupid.

    But, what the hell, it’s the truth.

  121. 121.

    Paddy O'Shea

    December 11, 2005 at 8:49 am

    Yeah, right. The Democrats have a moral obligation to clean up the disaster Bush and his handlers have created for us in Iraq. As if any good will come of this should we sacrifice a few thousand more troops and half a trillion dollars or so.

    Bush and his merry band of thugs have created for us a military disaster of historic proportions. And now they expect everyone to line up and help them project the lie that there is something to win here.

    There isn’t.

  122. 122.

    Mac Buckets

    December 11, 2005 at 12:46 pm

    Of course, you play a clever little turn of phrase that lead the majority of us who see through your bullshit to think otherwise

    My bullshit? You mean, the bullshit of the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission? If you have a gripe with his refuting DNC lying-points by pointing out the previous Iraq-Al Qaeda ties, then write him. I don’t think he’ll reverse himself and start rewriting history to make the anti-war case more palatable, but you could always try.

    You know damn well there were no OPERATIONAL ties between them of any sort, which is the only kind of ‘tie’ that is relevant.

    Why? Because you say so? Sorry, not good enough. The fact that Saddam wasn’t involved operationally in the 9/11 attacks shouldn’t obscure the intelligence that said that Saddam was aiding and abetting Al Qaeda in other ways. At least, you’ll have to tell me why it should, instead of just asserting wildly with no explanation.

  123. 123.

    Mac Buckets

    December 11, 2005 at 12:48 pm

    Bush and his merry band of thugs have created for us a military disaster of historic proportions.

    The Drama Queen Party reps are out in force this morning! Rave on!

  124. 124.

    Kimmitt

    December 11, 2005 at 12:52 pm

    The fact that Saddam wasn’t involved operationally in the 9/11 attacks shouldn’t obscure the intelligence that said that Saddam was aiding and abetting Al Qaeda in other ways.

    The intelligence says that he gave one dude medical treatment and was trying to negotiate a cease-fire. The camps were on Kurdish territory that he did not control. This isn’t “aiding and abetting,” that’s “trying to not get killed by.”

  125. 125.

    ppGaz

    December 11, 2005 at 1:33 pm

    And to no avail. Despite the insistently redundant graphics – and despite the repetition of the word “victory” 15 times in the speech itself – Americans believed “Plan for Victory” far less than they once did “Mission Accomplished.” The first New York Times-CBS News Poll since the Naval Academy pep talk, released last Thursday, found that only 25 percent of Americans say the president has “a clear plan for victory in Iraq.” Tom Cruise and evolution still have larger constituencies in America than that.

    It arrived in my mailbox this morning from a well-known PayPerView MSM site.

    The administration that gave you “Mission Accomplished” staging in front of uniforms in May, 2003, brings you a “Plan for Victory” staging in front of uniforms in December, 2005.

    Apparently the Potatoheads are now just doing reruns. They don’t have any new episodes written yet.

    And why is anyone wasting his time “arguing” with MacFukkits? Or Darrell? Or any of these bobblehead apologists for the Drownie Administration?

  126. 126.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    December 11, 2005 at 2:00 pm

    And why is anyone wasting his time “arguing” with MacFukkits? Or Darrell? Or any of these bobblehead apologists for the Drownie Administration?

    That’s a good question. After readind their latest post I have come to the conclusion that they are too far gone. I’m not wasting my time anymore.

  127. 127.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    December 11, 2005 at 2:00 pm

    *reading
    *posts

  128. 128.

    Otto Man

    December 11, 2005 at 3:29 pm

    And why is anyone wasting his time “arguing” with MacFukkits? Or Darrell? Or any of these bobblehead apologists for the Drownie Administration?

    That’s a good question. After readind their latest post I have come to the conclusion that they are too far gone.

    Yeah, you have to love Mac. In a single post (12:46) he embraces Tom Kean’s oral comments as gospel in the first half, and then in the second half dismisses the 9/11 report’s findings officially endorsed by Kean.

    Of course, you play a clever little turn of phrase that lead the majority of us who see through your bullshit to think otherwise

    My bullshit? You mean, the bullshit of the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission? If you have a gripe with his refuting DNC lying-points by pointing out the previous Iraq-Al Qaeda ties, then write him. I don’t think he’ll reverse himself and start rewriting history to make the anti-war case more palatable, but you could always try.

    You know damn well there were no OPERATIONAL ties between them of any sort, which is the only kind of ‘tie’ that is relevant.

    Why? Because you say so? Sorry, not good enough. The fact that Saddam wasn’t involved operationally in the 9/11 attacks shouldn’t obscure the intelligence that said that Saddam was aiding and abetting Al Qaeda in other ways. At least, you’ll have to tell me why it should, instead of just asserting wildly with no explanation.

    It’s like discovering a new form of split-personality disorder. People can argue with him all they want, but it’s going to be as effective as telling a schizophrenic that the voices in their head aren’t real.

  129. 129.

    BIRDZILLA

    December 11, 2005 at 3:57 pm

    Demachumps srike again and HARRY REID is acting like a idiot

  130. 130.

    ppGaz

    December 11, 2005 at 4:11 pm

    Demachumps srike again and HARRY REID is acting like a idiot

    I hope that rilkefan is watching this. Birdzilla is a frigging poet.

  131. 131.

    John S.

    December 11, 2005 at 7:02 pm

    And why is anyone wasting his time “arguing” with MacFukkits? Or Darrell? Or any of these bobblehead apologists for the Drownie Administration?

    I don’t do it because I think I can get through their thick skulls, I do it for the casual reader who might pay heed to their bullshit.

  132. 132.

    Sojourner

    December 11, 2005 at 9:20 pm

    I like Birdzilla. He exemplifies the 36% who still support this president.

  133. 133.

    Paddy O'Shea

    December 11, 2005 at 9:33 pm

    Chickenhawk Mac Nuggets? A man noted mostly for putting the pucker in asshole.

  134. 134.

    Mac Buckets

    December 11, 2005 at 10:49 pm

    In a single post (12:46) he embraces Tom Kean’s oral comments as gospel in the first half, and then in the second half dismisses the 9/11 report’s findings officially endorsed by Kean.

    Yeah, that woulda been funny, if it were true, but anyone with a GED could probably figure out that I never dismissed any finding of the 9/11 commission in that post — in fact, I have repeatedly agreed with the findings of the 9/11 Commission in this thread. What I was dismissing was the assertion that only operational ties to 9/11 mattered, and Iraq’s other ties to Al Qaeda should be dismised as inconsequential.

    People can argue with him all they want, but it’s going to be as effective as telling a schizophrenic that the voices in their head aren’t real.

    I think we might take your psychoanalysis a little more seriously if you’d first learn how to read.

  135. 135.

    Mac Buckets

    December 11, 2005 at 10:55 pm

    The intelligence says that he gave one dude medical treatment and was trying to negotiate a cease-fire.

    Again, what to believe: The History According to Kimmitt, or 9/11 Commission testimony by Clinton’s Secretary of Defense? Hmmmmm, another close one.

  136. 136.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    December 11, 2005 at 11:01 pm

    I like Birdzilla. He exemplifies the 36% who still support this president.

    Hahahahha.

    Pure Gold!

  137. 137.

    Otto Man

    December 12, 2005 at 8:37 am

    What happens when Mac spreads his bullshit and no one responds?

  138. 138.

    Shygetz

    December 12, 2005 at 9:42 am

    You know, I have a serious question that I’d like to ask all of the current Iraq war supporters. What has to happen for you to decide that we can no longer meet our defined goals for victory (whatever you think they are), and therefore to support withdrawl? And similarly, what has to happen for you to decide that we have achieved victory in Iraq, and can support withdrawl? (Please give firm measures, not stuff like “once freedom is on the march” or meaningless crap like that).

    Part of my big problem with this whole thing is that the President tells us that we are going to “stay the course”, but he hasn’t made it clear what the course is, or where it will end up. Therefore, why should I want to stay a course that leads me through uncharted territory to an unknown destination? Solely for my pride in America “victory” in whatever sense it means in this case? For some untested hypothesis that A.) a Western-style democracy can flourish in Iraq and B.) an additional Western-style democracy (other than Turkey) will cause a domino-effect, and the entire region will suffer from an epidemic of freedom? For the idea that, if we don’t leave, Iraq will be a terrorist haven (which, apparently, there are none of now)? Now that we know that there are no WMDs there, which is the only reason why (and I’m embarassed to admit that I was convinced) I initially supported the war, I personally don’t see any compelling reason to be there, other than to try to clean up the mess we made ourselves. I’m all for people having freedom, but I also believe that for freedom to be lasting, it must be self-earned and cannot be given.

  139. 139.

    John S.

    December 12, 2005 at 12:59 pm

    What I was dismissing was the assertion that only operational ties to 9/11 mattered, and Iraq’s other ties to Al Qaeda should be dismised as inconsequential.

    Comedy gold.

    Because of course, the President led us to war over Saddam’s non-operational ties to Al Quaeda vis-a-vis the infamous Mesopotamia Chili Cookoff of ’99.

    I wonder in Mac’s warped little brain what constitutes a non-operational tie between Saddam and Al Quaeda that was important and a matter of consequence.

  140. 140.

    Tractarian

    December 12, 2005 at 4:40 pm

    What I was dismissing was the assertion that only operational ties to 9/11 mattered, and Iraq’s other ties to Al Qaeda should be dismised as inconsequential.

    Let’s play a little game.

    What world leader had “CLOSER TIES” to al-Qaeda as of 2003?

    (a) Saddam Hussein, or
    (b) George W. Bush

    Hm. Well, one of Saddam’s intelligence officers may have met with a Bin Laden henchman in Prague at some point or another. There were some al-Qaeda thugs training in the north of Iraq, beyond Saddam’s police control. Those are pretty close ties. But wait. Bush did business with Bin Laden’s brother. Bush’s dad met with Bin Laden’s brother on the morning of 9/11. The American government overtly armed and equipped Bin Laden and his cohorts in the 80s. It’s a close one, but I’m gonna go with (b)

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Never Yet Melted » Good One says:
    December 10, 2005 at 9:33 pm

    […] John Cole has been moving left recently, sharing his blog with moonbat Tim F., and sobbing big, salty tears over American abuse of the poor widdle terrorists, and I moved Balloon Juice down to Unsound Blogs to repose with Democratic Underground and Daily Koz. But every now and then, you can look in and find the old John Cole at home. John observed the democrats’ response to the Republican Party white-flag video, and responded today: Once again, Democrats are furious with the Republican party for ‘misrepresenting’ them and portraying them as wanting to ‘cut and run.’ How has the GOP done this? By taking direct quotes from the DNC Chairman, the House Minority Leader, and the Democratic candidate for President and standard-bearer just a year ago and putting them over top of a person waving a white flag. […]

Primary Sidebar

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

2023 Pet Calendars

Pet Calendar Preview: A
Pet Calendar Preview: B

*Calendars can not be ordered until Cafe Press gets their calendar paper in.

Recent Comments

  • YY_Sima Qian on War for Ukraine Day 343: Bakhmut (Feb 2, 2023 @ 7:55pm)
  • NutmegAgain on War for Ukraine Day 343: Bakhmut (Feb 2, 2023 @ 7:55pm)
  • Mallard Filmore on War for Ukraine Day 343: Bakhmut (Feb 2, 2023 @ 7:53pm)
  • Baud on War for Ukraine Day 343: Bakhmut (Feb 2, 2023 @ 7:53pm)
  • Betsy on Thursday Morning Open Thread: Groundhog Day (Feb 2, 2023 @ 7:52pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Favorite Dogs & Cats
Classified Documents: A Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup

Front-pager Twitter

John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
ActualCitizensUnited

Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice   

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!