As everybody knows by now I think highly of Russ Feingold’s motion to censure the president for knowingly breaking the law. You also had to know that some Democrats would run away scared and some whose initials are Joe Lieberman would come at Feingold with all ten fingernails. Greenwald points out why that’s stupid, but he’s basically recapitulating what I wrote in my second post at this site. In brief, in a legislative battle where one party manages to find or impose unanimity and the other doesn’t, the party with unanimity usually wins. If you’re a party that can’t manage to find accord on practically any issue then it doesn’t matter how thin your minority status might be, you simply don’t matter. Opponents who want a solid vote on whatever issue can always count on peeling off a few caucus members trying to appear ‘reasonable.’
For inexplicable reasons Democrats continue to think that the spying issue will make them look ‘weak on defense.’ Guys, a majority of Americans support impeachment if the president did what he clearly did. A freshman Hyundai dealer could make this sale. Instead of that we get a party determined to make itself irrelevant in an effort to avoid looking weak. Ugh.
As always you can reach the Senate switchboard at (202) 225-3121. If anybody can get an answer from your Democratic Senator about where he or she stands on the Feingold resolution (I have little hope for a reasonable answer from Santorum or Specter) please let us know in the comments.
Pb
If only.
The Other Steve
Well, I honestly wish Feingold had waited a bit, or at least talked to the other Democrats to get their feel on what they’d do.
Perhaps that’s part of the problem? They don’t work together to strategize.
Steve
I’m quite confident that Feingold knew his colleagues were going to do nothing whatsoever unless he prodded them to action. Once again, Democrats chose to take political advice from Karl Rove, refraining from attacking the President on the spying issue because it might make them look “weak on national security.”
If they hang Feingold out to dry in the end, it won’t say much about the merits of his resolution, but it will say a lot about the state of the Democratic delegation. Good luck raising money to take back the Senate in November if they decide to stand with President Bush on this issue.
Ekim
Neither Patty Murray’s nor Maria Cantwell’s office will state a position yet, but they both said they were receiving calls and making tallies.
Paul L.
Come on guys push this. Let’s have a vote.
Democrats Want To Censure Bush? Let’s Vote On It
“Hey, you liberal weenies, don’t sing it, bring it. Let’s have a vote, right there in the Senate, and we’ll see who’s serious about America’s security and who’d rather cater to the wackos at the Democratic Underground and the Kos crowd. America deserves to know where the Senate stands on this issue, so, by all means, let’s have a vote!”
I love this farce for providing this gem from a lefty.
Standard fare for lefties: Insist that things are investigated and well aired. Can you believe them? The nerve!
So we’ll be seeing the complete Barrett Report any day now, right?
Par R
In addition, keep those cards and letters rolling in to your favorite Democrat. And while you’re at it, send a copy to your local newspaper. I understand that the Republican National Committee now has a standing order to get copies of virtually all releases by MoveOn.org out to their base since they have found it boosts contribution return rates by upwards of 30%. Keep up the good work as you are doing the job that the Republicans seem incapable of doing effectively, namely, building support for the National Leader.
don surber
Let’s see, it is so obvious to all the lefties that Bush is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and yet none of the Democrats will join Feingold. Hmm. Not Byrd. Not Kennedy. Not Feinstein. Not Biden. Pretty bad when Schumer turns down TV time to avoid standing by Russ
But this is the hoop Russ have to jump through if he is going to get that Soros and Peter Lewis money
ppGaz
It depends on whether you think that “the party” is Hillary Clinton and The Joes, Biden and Lieberman.
AFAIC, the party is me, and I say, fuck those people. Their party is over. Time for them to move on.
Otto Man
It takes a lot to shift the conventional wisdom, and someone has to be brave enough to make that first push. When Bob Barr called for Clinton’s impeachment early on, it seemed to come out of nowhere. But in time, enough people rallied around the idea and it finally happened.
At the very least, Feingold has broached the subject of censuring the president and, in so doing, shifted the punditry’s focus from the Bush team’s terms of bold vigilance in the “terrorist surveillance program” to a discussion of just what the proper response is when the president willfully breaks the law and promises to do so again.
Feingold’s planted a seed here. It may not take root right away, but it’s in the soil.
Pooh
Huey, Duey and Looey have weighed in, I guess that settles things.
capelza
And they are so shrill…that maniacal laughter.
Steve
I don’t blame all the righties for showing up in this comment thread to toss around cheap taunts. I’d taunt this weak-willed Democratic Party too if I were on that side. It must be fun, telling your political enemies that they don’t dare to oppose you, and watching them actually take your advice.
Pretty amazing that these guys lose election after election and yet insist on doing the same old things. It’s not that, say, Chuck Schumer is afraid of losing his seat if he goes too far to the left. It’s that he legitimately believes it will backfire on the party if they take any stand whatsoever. At what point does he start to think like Feingold and say hey, even if it’s risky to do what I feel is right, what do we have to lose?
The idea that it actually would be an electoral disaster for the Dems to support Feingold is laughable, of course, and if anyone actually believed it then they’d be doing the exact opposite of trying to talk the Dems out of it. But as long as the Dems insist on being scared of their own shadows, hey, taunt away. It must be nice.
Par R
Poop says: “Huey, Duey and Looey have weighed in, I guess that settles things.” Poop’s not even clever enough to spell their names correctly…it’s “Huey, Dewey and Louie,” dummy.
Oh, and I believe it should be spelled with a second “p” instead of the “h.”
Pooh
Yes, because that’s like the status quo right? So an ‘electoral disaster’ would be somehow worse? Methinks the size of the minority doesn’t matter a whole hell of a lot.
Of course, most of these wussbag’s definition of ‘electoral disaster’ is “me losing my seat”
Pooh
Par, try harder. You are more talented a troll than that.
dith
Politricks is the law of the jungle disguised in the jungle of their laws.
Steve
What’s the Barrett Report, by the way? It seems almost self-evident from the context that it has something to do with Clinton, but hey, just thought I would ask.
pistol1557
Feinstein: Undecided.
Boxer: Undecided.
Which makes tons of sense when you consider that Boxer 57.9%, Jones 37.7%.
Par R
Come on, POOP…I’ve seen your website….and believe me, you are not talented at all. One can only assume that you troll sites such as this one, posting your site address, in the rather pathetic attempt to attract an audience. While it is painfully obvious that some here have no other life than engaging in a sort of mutual circle jerk around lefty crapola, even this crowd is probably not that desparate.
capelza
OMG! PatR said Poop instead of Pooh…aren’t they the clever one. Isn’t that, like, so second grade or something.
Pooh
Oh, I believe you. I mean, after being called on the inanity of your first attempt, you double down by ADDING ALL CAPS. I am not worthy of such ingenuity. Please spare me from future doses of your fearsome wit.
kelsey
I’m confused. I thought that the Senate’s job was to lick the President’s balls. Granted, I have only been paying attention to politics since 2000, but that has been my observation. So is censure a different way of saying, “we want to play with the grundle?”
jaime
Oh, dip. Par changed your name from Pooh to Poop. To top it off he’s captialized it, which in internet language means he’s shouting POOP.
Don’t you see how embarassing and degrading that is? POOP. POOP. He even corrected your spelling. When people do that, it’s to show how smart they are and how dumb YOU are. Don’t you feel dumb Pooh because you misspelled Dewey, Louie?
He seriously faced you, dude.
Par R
Come on, POOP. Try to be a little original with your girlish putdowns. I’ve seen your work elsewhere, and once you get out the dictionary and other reference materials, you can put together two or three original-sounding sentences. Perhaps you could get together with capelza and working as a duo, come up with something really, really powerful and persuasive; I figure putting your two brains together would at least generate enough intellect to equal that of my favorite dog.
Pooh
I’m sorry, can anyone here speak Braying Ass? Can translate for me?
jaime
He did it again. POOP. Ouch. And to top it off he’s calling you’re insults girlish. How could you ever defend yourself against POOP?
Pooh
Jaime, he’s so witty he could be a Yankee fan…
(I keed)
jaime
Oops. I spelled it “you’re” not “your”. I will probably feel the great Par R’s wrath as he shred’s my spelling. I am unworthy.
jaime
OH NO!!!!! I spelled “shreds”, “shred’s”!!!!!!!!
I will ignore the insult because you referenced Triumph.
Pooh
Year Two-Thousand (clap clap clapclapclap)
I will say this: Mariano is a classy dude, respect for that.
Seriously, him tipping his cap to us at our Home opener last year was basically a dignified way of pointing at the scoreboard (or the 4 rings to our one).
Par R
LOL! LOL!
The wit among the obviously intellectually challenged is amazing to behold. Want to bet that they put their thoughts together and came up with such witticisms? It sure appears unlikely that they could have done it all alone with no outside help. And you morons wonder why your side can’t win elections! With allies such as you twits, it’s a wonder that you can even cast a ballot successfully…oops, I forgot about your unfortunate stupidity in West Palm Beach in 2000.
Pooh
yawn
Par R
Poor sad little POOP…he’s tired and needs his sleep….he’s thunk and thunk all night long and is ready to go to bed. Good night, POOP…sleep well!!
On another subject, I will have to say that Feingold is among the more principled Senators in either party. I do think he’s wrong on this issue, but unlike most on his side of the aisle, he probably actually believes part of what he’s doing and saying.
jaime
Embrace the hubris. Make love to it. Let it feed you from within.
SeesThroughIt
No, I think the House has to lick the balls; the Senate just works the shaft.
capelza
I really want to apologise…I didn’t realise my three y/o granddaughter was playing on the comp.
Par R
You can’t fool us, crapelza. We know you’re gay and don’t have grandchildren. Also, you don’t appear to have much of a sense of humor.
capelza
Somebody spoofing PatR?
Noone can be THAT lame.
VidaLoca
Feingold’s move does 2 things:
1. Keeps the focus on Bush: the President who claims the authority to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, with no regard for any law that causes him any inconvenience.
2. Shames the rest of the Democrats. That big silence we all heard when Feingold spoke up? That was the sound of the rest of them wondering where they left their ‘nads.
He’s saying that the Emperor is naked. It’s a powerful statement. It’s too early to tell whether he’ll get his ass handed to him for doing it but with Bush’s popularity somewhere in the upper 30’s and falling it’s not that likely. If Feingold gets out in front of the constitutional issue the way Murtha got out in front of the war issue, it helps Feingold and it helps stop Bush.
One is all it takes to start it. You guys on the right take your shots at the national Democrats and they deserve it. Sorry bunch that they are, they’ve internalized a loser mentality. If Feingold comes out on top of this though, maybe next time somebody else will get brave.
Meanwhile, the Dem’s didn’t shoot anyone in the face. The Dems didn’t try to turn the ports over to Dubai. The Dems didn’t get us into the middle of a civil war in a country we had no business invading in the first place, for reasons nobody can either defend of explain.
From where they’re sitting, the national Democrats can only go one direction: up. Meanwhile, can your guy get through next week without another colossal f*ckup that will drive his credibility any lower?
CaseyL
Cantwell and Murray were undecided yesterday and undecided today. Bullshit. It’s not like they haven’t known about the NSA program, or that the SIC folded on whether to investigate it.
And it sure as hell isn’t like they don’t know if the damned thing’s illegal. Specter’s attempts to justify the program is straight out of an old Get Smart script: “The AUMF is just like a Declaration of War… No? Well, would you believe Section II of the Constitution gives Bush all the power… No? Well, would you believe the FISA’s unConsitutional? No? Well…um…”
Leonidas
Oh, please. I dare the Democrats to vote to censure the president. I double dog dare them. If they want to alienate centrist voters, then be my guest. This is the kind of stunt that will push us towards a filibuster proof majority this November.
Not that I’m complaining.
Synuclein
What, are you kidding? A filibuster-proof majority?? Maybe for the Dems — but only if someone other than Russ shows some backbone.
The Repubs in Congress are running away from GWB like he’s radioactive, which he seems to be according to the polls. In the last Survey USA poll, only six states have Bush at or above 50% (notably Texas has it as a “push”). Also note that, in recent polls on national security, Bush has lost his edge in the one issue he had continued to dominate over Democrats.
So, tell me again why a president with an average approval rating of 37% in the major polls (and who has dropped about 3.5 points just in the last month) is such a powerhouse that the Dems should be shaking in their boots.
Mossback Mountain
Feingold is screwing all the Dems who authorized this type of thing from Congress way before Bush or other Presidents. Its Congress that authorized the CIA operations officers to use NSA assets for dometic NOC work under the five year law. Its old back to the early 90s when Aimes went down. Its just another pattern. Same play, different players.
How do we go back and check Congress? There is no oversight of Congress and the CIA operations offficers even when they operate domestically.
Kimmitt
“Don’t throw me in that there briar patch, Br’er Fox!”
Pooh
Par,
This might be of use to you.
M.A.
First and most important rule: any time a partisan Republican says that an issue is bad for the Democrats, it is not bad for the Democrats. Ergo:
– If Karl Rove says that the Democrats will lose big if they pursue the NSA scandal, then Karl Rove is petrified of the idea that someone might actually pursue the NSA scandal.
– If Rove Jr. says that Democrats need to become less pro-choice in order to win elections, Rove Jr. is actually thinking “please let the Democrats abandon a position that a majority of voters agree with. Then we’ll win New York and California again.”
– If Rove Lite says “Democrats need to stop saying ‘Bush lied’ if they want to win elections…” well, we all know where this is going.
Final analysis: if you say this is a bad issue for us, it means about the same as my telling Republicans to give up on trying to appeal to white Christian men. In other words, never take advice from someone who wants you to lose.
Unfortunately, the national Democrats frequently do take advice from people who want them to lose, but that’s no reason why I should copy their mistakes….
Steve
Understanding the political dynamics better than the elected Democrats does not make you smarter. It just makes you more prone to bouts of depression.
tbrosz
A majority of voters support the NSA program when the details are explained in poll questions.
It’s not surprising that Democrats who actually have to worry about re-election don’t want to run off the cliff with Feingold.
So put it up for a vote, already. Like the “immediate withdrawal” proposal. Let’s see what happens.
Pb
tbrosz,
And what would your fraudulent GOP resolution say this time?
Looks like it’s time for another round of “spoof or moron”…
M.A.
Nope. People are split about 50-50 on the question of whether this program is illegal or not. And it’s the illegality for which Feingold wants censure.
This assumes that, say, Clinton or Kennedy would lose re-election if they voted to censure Bush. This is silly. A “Bush sucks” vote would prove an extra boost in most of these people’s states. They’re not worried about re-election; they just don’t want to bother with the issue because it can’t be explained in half a sentence.
They never actually put Murtha’s plan up for a vote, of course, but I do think the censure resolution should be put up for a vote. Some Democrats will vote for it, some won’t, and the Democrats will (in spite of themselves) wind up looking better. Sort of like the Murtha thing allowed at least some Democrats to get on the side of the true things Murtha was saying (it’s a civil war) before that truth became conventional wisdom. Feingold is the same way: he specializes in “insane, crazy, maverick” positions that become conventional wisdom within a few months.
RonB
He’s really not. Don’t set the poor idiot up by having high expectations.
The Other Steve
Uhh, no. Only if the details are hidden, and the question is “Do you support spying on terrorists?”
Steve
Snicker. The simplest reason why tbrosz’ statement is an obvious lie is that the details of the NSA program aren’t even known. Not even to Congress, let alone to the Gallup pollsters!
What is frankly amazing about the polling on the surveillance issue is how many people are opposed, even though the questions simply take the President’s word for what the program involves, and even though there has been no serious political opposition.
And when it’s framed in terms of whether the President should have to get a court order, there’s a clear majority that says yes. Don’t take my word for it, though – just keep on doing what you’re doing, and then act surprised when the libertarians never vote for the GOP again.
Thomas More
Wisconsin’s other Senator, Herb Kohl:
“As the Senate continues to investigate the president’s implementation of the domestic eavesdropping program, it is not clear that censuring the president is the most effective way to bring that program into line with our need to protect national security and civil liberties,” he said in a statement.
Thanks Herb. Way to stand up.
Randolph Fritz
Well, only John Kerry supported Feingold. I think this single move, plus Feingold’s record, may well make Feingold our next President.
Good grief!
For those of you wondering about Feingold’s politics, he seems to be a decent Wisconsin progressive.
Steve
You know, when you make John Kerry look like a study in political courage by comparison, it might be time to rethink your position.
Ken Hahn
The Democrats don’t qualify for weak on defense. Probably disinterested would be generous. Foreign policy either bores or enrages Democrats. It interferes with their objective of buying votes with other people’s money.
Leonidas
Only Bush can keep us safe. The Dems want to let the terrorists roam free without being monitored in anyway.
Why does the ACLU hate America?
Pb
Heh. Leo *is* a parody…
Blue Neponset
I think what the Dem leadership just doesn’t understand is that how you fight is sometimes more important than why you fight. IOW, there are times when balls are more important than brains and this is one of them. The Dems need to find something to fight for and then go to the mattresses over it. A little ruthlessness on their part is long overdue.
Al Maviva
Isn’t it amazing how your ideas on the left resonate so well with everybody whose opinion you value, and really, nobody else’s political ideas have any merit*, yet the closer to your positions that a candidate is, as a rule, the harder it is for them to get elected except in a few rather liberal areas of the country? I wonder why that is? Phrasing it differently, why is the Kossack record in candidate endorsements 0-fer?
It must be:
(1) Republican dirty tricks.
or
(2) The voters are too ignorant or stupid to comprehend the brilliance of left liberal ideas.
or
(3) Dems aren’t being nasty enough in taking the fight to Republicans, if they’d just ditch the puss-i-fied moderate pose and scream – a lot louder – they’d win more.
or
(4) For a significant percentage of the population, left liberal ideas are less appealing than conservative ideas, or even dumbass corporatist/statist Republican ideas.
Hmmm… Could be #1 (occasionally) or #2 (all the time), but I am leaning to #3. #4 isn’t even possible, there’s no way that conservatives or Republicans are right about anything.
The solution therefore must be to scream louder and show real fight. That will get the voters to love left liberal ideas and vote Democrat. Yeah, that must be it. People love a fighter.
*This is a symptom of Pauline Kael syndrome. Better get that checked out.
chopper
Phrasing it differently, why is the Kossack record in candidate endorsements 0-fer?
because kos supports underdogs almost exclusively. when you support the underdog in politics, you’re going to lose more than win.
Steve
Right. Goldwater got blown out, which proves conservatism is dead. Better abandon those unpopular ideas.
It’s true that Feingold probably would have no chance outside of super-duper-ultra-bleeding-heart-liberal Wisconsin. Good point, Al.
The theory that Bush won because people prefer conservative ideas died with his social security plan. Like I said above, yes it’s fun to taunt the cowardly elected Democrats who are afraid to take a stand on anything until 80% of the country gets there first. But don’t kid yourself into thinking you actually have a point.
GOP4Me
HAHAHAHAHAHA! By all means, keep telling yourself that. Democrats need to think less about the 30% of Americans whose votes they’re trying to capture, and listen more to the Cindy Sheehan-bot moonbats. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
At this rate, by 2028 the two major parties in America will be the Republicans and the Libertarians.
Blue Neponset
So what do you suggest Al? Should we just give up and start praising our Republican overlords?
What conservative ideas would those be? Huge budget deficits, record Gov’t debt, lobbying reform, keeping the Gays in check,
privatepersonal Social Security accounts, teaching Intelligent Design in school, ignoring skyrocketing healtcare costs, making sure we don’t have an energy policy, drilling in ANWR, border security, immigration reform, enlarging the Federal Gov’t?No matter how great those ideas are they don’t mean much unless you actually implement them. You guys have controlled all three houses of the elected, Federal goverment for all but 18 months of Bush’s reign and you don’t have much to show for it.
I wouldn’t worry about it though, Al. After all, Kos is 0 for 19, and that is really all the evidence you need to prove that the US voting public loves Conservative ideas.
Tim F.
Al,
You act like politics is a contest of ideas. Why? The GOP has no ‘ideas’ worth mentioning. Every political race since 9/11 has been targeted directly at the amygdala.
mitch
Is what Bush and the NSA did legal or illegal? That is the question. So let’s go to that one source of all things legal:
“There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law.” — Al Gore, seven times (in one form or another), White House news conference, March 3, 1997 when discussing fundraising from his White House office
I’m still waiting for a controlling legal authority to speak.
The silence is deafening.
I guess it’s legal
Lines
I see Al has no ideas of his own, instead choosing to make generalized statements to make himself feel manly while accomplishing very little.
Congrats, Al Mavi, you’re gaining pathetic points hand over fist.
Ancient Purple
By which time the Republicans will have bankrupted this nation with its “sound fiscal policy” and we will be owned by the Chinese.
GOP4Me
China’s going to look like the former USSR in 10 years.
Read a newspaper, the old regime is crumbling.
Lines
You know, actually having the guys that did the spying come forward, claim they spied on American citizens, just isn’t enough. We need Pat Robertson to come forward and tell us how God has told him that its ok for the President to spy on American’s, to ignore the funny noises on the phone line when we call Great Aunt Constance in the old country. After all, there’s no telling what Constance could have under that big black Italian dress. I’ll bet she’s packin a vest loaded with rusty nails and glass.
Al Maviva
No Blue. I suggest you keep villifying republicans, conservatives, right-leaning libertarians and moderates (not to mention people who just don’t care about politics) who refuse to see things your way as villains, fascists, morons, boobs liars and scum. When something isn’t working, the solution is more of it. Hence nationalized health care, an ever growing entitlement system, and the federal bureaucracy. Some people would say that when something doesn’t work – like segregation, or the Great Society cradle-to-grave welfare state, or the federalization of education – that the proponents ought to reconsider their beliefs, study the problem, go back to first principles & premises and ask why.
Not me though. I suggest that you double down.
Such is life when you tie your sense of morality and righteousness to your notions of public policy – it is not just difficult but downright sinful to give up on any of your political fights. As if God or the Devil has an opinion on marginal tax rates. That’s what makes the religious right kinda stupid, and what makes your side – with its talk of evil fascist Republicans (can’t say things like that unless you have a strong sense of right & wrong)… entertaining to me.
Davebo
Wow!
Al’s made two comments without having to provide deceptive partial quotes out of context or outright lying.
The senate Dems have reached a new low. This is but a sign.
Steve
Well, thank God no one ever vilifies liberals.
The idea that there is a binary choice between “conservative ideas” and “liberal ideas” is just absurd. Liberals have some very popular ideas, and some unpopular ones. If conservatives get 51% of the vote, that does not mean that people are against raising the minimum wage. If liberals get 51% of the vote, that does not mean people are suddenly against banning “partial-birth abortion.”
If “small government” is such a winning idea, for example, how come neither party seems to be in favor of it?
When the Vice-President of the United States makes regular appearances on Rush Limbaugh’s show, which features all kinds of eliminationist rhetoric directed towards liberals, that’s apparently no big deal because they’re the winning team. But when ppGaz posts on the Internet that Republicans are fascists, gee, somewhere out there a swing voter is being alienated.
It really can’t be healthy to entertain such delusions, or such a lack of perspective.
gratefulcub
Democratic Primary:
Who was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, twice?
Introduced legislation to censure an unpopular president?
Hasn’t tried to run to the center?
Stands for what he believes in instead of what is politically popular?
Can excite the base?
Clinton? Warner? Bayh? Kerry?
Feingold may not be the most well known, or most popular today, but by 2007 he will be in the race.
And for all the GOP out there saying that ‘a liberal like Feingold’ can’t win the general election, who do you have to beat him?
Gulianni and McCain can’t get out of the primary, and if McCain is the nominee, hallelujah. 18 months of media attention will shine light on the fact that he is to the right of everyone, the man would invade Iran tomorrow.
Brownback, Warner, Frist? Oh please oh please oh please. Please try to run on gay marriage again. Abortion. Their love of Dobson. They won’t get the 51% needed.
Condi? This is a joke, isn’t it? I hope not.
Feingold will actually fight for what he believes in, and that is all we are waiting on. Someone that will take on the republicans instead of trying not to offend them can and will win in 08.
Al Maviva
Maybe it’s never been tried.
Blue Neponset
I noticed you didn’t say we villify people by accusing them of being unpatriotic. I think the Repubs have that one down to a science.
Re: policies and principles
Results speak louder than Rush Limbaugh. If you want to beat the Dems over the head with the benefits of your great policy ideas then you may want to actually implement them.
Lines
Maybe Al Maviva is my theoretical homeless guy under the bridge.
How many cans of sterno is it this morning, Al?
Al Maviva
So far, to paraphrase the responses to my comments, it’s “Al is a lying liar,” “Rush Limbaugh is a dick,” “Republicans were mean first” and “Al is an insane homeless guy.”
I’ve never seen an argument quite like that, so I guess I’ll just concede. The above responses prove whatever it is you all were trying to prove. It’s a really trenchant argument and I’m impressed.
Tim F.
I asked you to defend the assumption that elections post-9/11 had anything to do with ideas. If your argument rests on an invalid assumption then it effectively counters itself.
Lines
Al, you’re pushing forth inaccurate and dishonest representations of liberals in order to shield yourself from discussing the points at hand, which is that Bush has violated the Constitution. You seem to believe that its only “liberals” attacking Bush as normal, and not a real crime.
So if you want to be taken seriously, maybe you should actually stop acting like the drunken sot under a bridge and actually discuss facts.
Otherwise, we’ll just keep treating you like the sterno drinking moron you are acting like.
scs
This doesn’t totally relate, but here is an interesting excerpt from a recent NYT article that I haven’t seen discussed much. Not only are the Dems right about Bush spying, but that are also right about Bush lying. Bush lied so effectively, that even the Iraqi’s started to believe they had WMD. (bold mine)
scs
Sorry, here’s the end of that part.
Tim F.
scs,
Most sensible opponents to the Iraq war made that same argument in 2002. Sadam had geopolitical reasons to keep his neighbors wondering whether or not he had an unconventional arms capacity, which explains why he was reluctant to comply fully until obliged to do so under threat of force. Your ironic sidetrack is actually an important confirmation of an anti-war argument that got little attention in the press.
Blue Neponset
Al,
You are right that I think Rush Limbaugh is a dick.
If you can’t handle snarky responses maybe you shouldn’t post snarky comments?
Slartibartfast
I’m curious to know how come Dianne Feinstein isn’t co-sponsoring. I’d guess that’d be a shoo-in, considering that she too is on both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. If she’s had access to the same information that Feingold has, I’d think she’d be in agreement with him.
I’m for the debate, myself. I think it’s possible that no law was broken (and I don’t believe Feingold really made his case in that regard), but those people who ought to know for sure seem to be in disagreement. Whether it’s disagreement over the law or political maneuvering (or some combination thereof) I have no idea. The last thing that should be done, though, is having a vote on the resolution without the debate.
scs
Yes TIm F, but the fact that the Iraqi’s gave such a good show that they had WMD, takes away from the support that “Bush lied” which seems to still be such a beloved talking point of the left. It’s more like Bush reported what he saw. So the left has so much credibility built up from “Bush lied”, that they now want to cash in with “Bush spied”. Somehow, I doubt the left will get much mileage from it.
Lines
scs:
what is your point? As Tim pointed out, many of the anti-Iraq invasion group had made all of those arguments in 2002, trying to point out that there was very little chance that the stocks of unconventional weapons would be even effective after being stored for so long, even if there were any.
Are you trying to agree with the anti-war “liberals”?
And havn’t we turned the corner on lying about stocks of WMDs?
Lines
scs: Even the intelligence community commented on the liklihood of Saddam actually having any potent biological weapons.
The Bush Administration cherry-picked intelligence that would support a path to war. How is this NOT lying?
scs
Please refresh my memory. I don’t remember that being an anit-war argument before the war. I thought the argument was that the inspectors (Hans Blix) didn’t find anything, Saddam was being cooperative, and therefore Iraq must not have them. However, we see from the excerpt that Saddam was not providing full access and was being coy. If the inspectors did NOT have full access, how could we have known for sure before the war that there wasn’t WMD? Without full access, there was no way to know there wasn’t. And a lot of info to think there was. Not exactly “Bush lied”.
Lines
Thats so cute, its almost like you don’t have to understand the history to rewrite it.
Run along little girl, there are some cookies you need to sell or something.
scs
Because if it’s just as likely that something is true as it is false, then it’s a matter of someone making an informed decision from the evidence. Somewhat like a jury at a trial. Bush looked at the evidence, both pro and con, and made his decision. His decision was reasonable, based on the information we had- and so we usually don’t call that lying. Unless you’re a Dem of course.
Brian
Tim, your assertion is revolting and betrays a person, and a party, that is fundamentally unserious about governance.
Rather than applauding Feingold for this stunt, you might consider being severely critical of him for bringing forth a motion without having the support for it. He caught his own party off-guard.
And you truly support this nonsense? You, and your party, are incredibly, astonishingly, incompetent.
scs
Sorry, I’m afraid the left is rewriting it now to “there was NO evidence” to “there was evidence, but we knew it was fake all along.” Sorry, we do have records of these things you know, called newspapers.
ppGaz
Ah, but you are overestimating these guys.
Bashing the left is the point. The war doesn’t really matter in the long run. Social Security either. It’s all about bashing the Democrats and the left.
Everything, in the right-world, is a means to an end. GWOT is a means to that end. Defense of Bad Marriage is a means to that end. Delcaring Zygotes to be citizens, a means to that end.
The end is power, and the way to that power is over the prostrate forms of lefties and Democrats.
That’s why these people can propser in a fact-free universe. Facts simply don’t matter. Ideas don’t matter. People don’t matter. Nothing matters but winning.
When John Cole says “These repubs are destroying my country, but I won’t vote for their opponents” he is telling you the truth, and he is explaining it at the same time. This isn’t about what’s right, or good, it’s about whose team is winning. Period.
“Yeah, my Steelers played like shit, but hey, Jerome got his trophy.” It’s the same exact thing as “I don’t care how bad the GOP fucks up the country, I won’t vote for those Seahawks … I mean, Democrats.”
C’mon, people. Get a frigging clue.
Tim F.
The only people whom Saddam succeeded in convincing were people who desperately wanted to be convinced. The UN inspectors correctly evaluated that Saddam had little to nothing in the way of unconventional weapons.
Those were all perfectly valid arguments which, you’ll recall, turned out to be accurate. The argument that I quoted was a response to the people who claimed that Saddam’s reluctance to be 100% forthcoming must absolutely prove that he’s hiding something and that something must be a nuke or ten thousand gallons of anthrax or ten thousand gallons of nuclear anthrax laced with ricin. The easy response was that Saddam had just as much motivation to hide his lack of WMDs because full disclosure would make him appear weak to his neighbors. I’m guessing that you got most of your information from the usual media before the war, which you’ll recall ran nothing in the way of anti-war argument in 2002. It surprises me not at all that the entire line of argument passed you by.
Steve
Well, I’ll admit that my pre-war thoughts also ran along the lines of “Why would Saddam be so difficult if he had nothing to hide?” The point that he needed to scare Iran, et al. never occurred to me, so yeah, from my sample size of one I think Tim has the right take on history.
Interesting that this thread has turned into WMDs. Usually the censure threads turn into Murtha discussions somehow.
Now, pardon me while I call my spineless Dem senators one more time.
scs
Again, I don’t remember that being a strong argument before the war. Contrary to your opinion, I remember plenty of anti-war arguments in the mainstream media in 2002, which were mostly that “we should let the inspections work” . If I’m not mistaken, the leaders of the Democratic party, otherwise known as Senators and Representatives, usually go on mainstream media to put forth their opinions. They don’t usually go forth to leftie blogs to get out their words. So if I watch MSM, contrary to your opinion, I think I got the gist of it. I don’t believe the “fakery” argument was major at that time. Someone may have put it forth, sure, but not an emphasis. But again, we’d have to do dueling google for that to be sure.
So, anyway, even if the left asserted Saddam was just as likely to fake it as to have it, that also leaves open the possibility open that he was just as likely to have it as to fake it. If it could go either way, that’s not called lying- that’s called an ounce of prevention.
Lines
scs: The newspapers were the problem, 100%. They parroted the Bush Administration line, perfectly. They were not critical, even though people like Tim and myself and countless others were screaming from the rooftops and asking for a bit of sanity.
Sorry, your “newspapers” are just as guilty of the sale of the lemon as the Bush Admin, if not more so. Why do you think the anti-war left hates Judith Miller so much? She was the loudest cheerleader, ignoring the anti-war arguments with statements like “I was right! I was fucking right!”.
I’m sorry, little girl, but newspapers don’t give an accurate portrayal of this history any more than you do.
Lines
Here’s your ounce of prevention, you syphalitic little slut.
You fucking disgust me, scs.
scs
Huh? You say this “The point that he needed to scare Iran, et al. never occurred to me“, but then you say Tim was right. If it never occurred to you, then my take from your sample size of one, is right. If it didn’t occur to you that he was bluffing Iran, then it probably didn’t occur to you that he was bluffing at all.
scs
Hmmmm. I’m not even sure if it is spoofing anymore. Man you are starting to really lose it I think.
scs
TimF/John, are you witnessing this? What happened to your dictum to punish abusive behavior?
capelza
Uh because maybe he didn’t think a foreign power should have been dictating what he does inside his own country. It would have made him look weak in a region where being the “strong man” is important, etc..etc…didn’t say this all was right, just what might have been going on.
Would YOU like it if the UN suddenly decided that the US must submit to nuclear inspections and if we don’t they’ll invade?
Lines
bluffing?
How many google references can I find in under 5 minutes?
More than I want to link for your dumb ass, scs. Please grow up and stop compounding on your lies and misdirections, you’re an embarrasment to modern civilization.
scs
THIS from a man who said this?!
Wow. Isn’t it ironic.
SeesThroughIt
No, he didn’t, and that’s a well-known Bush operational policy: make up your mind, find evidence to support it, squelch anything to the contrary. Have you noticed how every dissenting voice gets silenced and/or fired? That’s not coincidence.
Basically, Bush was able to turn “Saddam wants Iran to think he has WMDs” into “Saddam absolutely, positively has WMDs, and he’s going to use them on the U.S. or give them to somebody else who will!” As we’ve seen (and some of us have pretty well known all along), the former statement is true, and the latter is completely false.
Tim F.
I just logged in and John is busy. Lines, knock it off. That’s definitely approaching the sort of shit that we banned Andrei for. There’s got to be a way to kick each other in the shins without this ugly sexist trash talk.
Steve
I don’t see why you’re confused.
Tim said the argument that Saddam might be bluffing about WMDs never made it into the media, even though we know it today to be true.
I said yes, that’s true, I never heard that argument made at the time. Of course, we wouldn’t have known it was true, but it at least would have answered the question “why would Saddam bluff if he really had no WMDs any more?”
Your point seems to be that if the argument wasn’t in the media, then no one was making it at all. The thing is (1) the media is actually not a mouthpiece for left-wing talking points, no matter what you may think; and (2) elected Democrats were certainly not making a strong anti-war case in the run-up to the war, so even if we assume the media parrots everything the Democrats have to say, they still aren’t the ones who were making the case against the war.
It’s like you assume that liberals always follow what the Democratic Party tells them to do, and therefore no one can be against the war unless the leading Democrats go there first. Trust me, it’s been a long time since the Democrats did anything liberal without their constituents dragging them there kicking and screaming.
scs
You know I think John/TimF are hypocrites. I remember I gave Disenfranchised Voter a hard time once, after he called Stormy a c**t. But I wasn’t completely out there or abusive about it, not compared to what I get all the time here. And he deleted ME. So the one time I say something a little tough, I’M deleted, yet I get that same treatment constantly here and John won’t do anything about it. That’s called selective enforcement.
Al Maviva
Sorry Tim. Didn’t see you’d responded. My bad.
You know why the Republicans bludgeon the Dems on national defense? Because it works. You have to ask yourself why it does. I believe it works because high-profile Dems consistently do tone-deaf things that keep the tactic workable. Baghdad Jim McDermott? Feingold’s censure motion directed at a program that he hasn’t actually been briefed on the details of? Sorry, but you have too many loony peacenik or unrealistic, pacifist idealists in prominent positions, scaring a good chunk of the country with national defense positions many would perceive as flaky. The idea of national defense, and what we should do, is a valid political question, and for a lot of people the Dem answers so far aren’t the right answer. In the eyes of conservatives and right-leaning moderates, preserving a strong national defense is one of the few incontrovertibly valid justifications for government actions, taxes and the like. Many on the left act like opposing the Iraq effort should be a valid question for your side to raise, but that rigorous and sometimes unfair questioning (it ain’t beanbag) of that position is inappropriate for the Republican side.
That’s beside your point though, which is the effect of ideas on recent elections. Apparently, you’ve missed John’s repeated posts on the topic, otherwise you’d understand that most conservatives are thoroughly disgusted with the Republican Party, a couple apparently good Supreme Court choices notwithstanding. If y’all didn’t have such blinders on about conservatives (and right leaning libertarians) you’d see the huge gap between these fat, sleek rent-seekers and the voting public. Unfortunately, conservatives or center-right moderates have no place to go other than to the Republicans, and the elevation of the Feingolds of the party over the Hoyers and Liebermans doesn’t help. When Republican pols vote to blow out the budget, the conservative response is outrage, but most of us won’t be driven to voting Dem, because the Dem pols mouth the words “fiscal responsibility” but in the next breath claim that social benefits and taxes aren’t rising fast enough. When the Republicans can’t provide effective defense oversight or clear direction, the conservative response isn’t generally to go vote for the party whose soul is being torn between truly reluctant hawks, and outright peaceniks. When the Dems have a budget critique other than “not enough money for social services” or a national defense plan other than “anything other than what that bastard Bush wants to do” then I’ll *consider* voting Dem. A real problem is the activist base; Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean may be pretty supportive of strong defense measures in committee, but due to fear of the base try to come across as half pacifist, half hawk in their public appearances in order to please two warring factions of Dems. This gives the Republicans a brickbat to throw. For now I have no choice but to vote for the opportunistic plastic haired southern bastards whom I loathe because they are the least worst alternative. I wish that weren’t so, but it is.
But does any of this really matter? No, of course not. I’m sure that I’m not changing any minds, nobody around here is open to having their mind changed on any issue. It’s easier to chalk up Republican wins to scare mongering, voter stupidity, or dirty tricks, than to ask whether one’s positions are shared by a majority of the voters, or to try to convince people to change their minds. Besides, the notion of Republican unfairness, the knife in the back, dirty tricks, plays into the politics of name calling a lot better than the idea that maybe the voters, in the aggregate have an opinion and act in accordance with it.
Lines
Look, there is a level if imbecelic individualistic attitude that I can tolerate, and then there is scs.
To even approach the mistake that is the Iraq Invasion with the childish attitude of “its an ounce of prevention” is about as pathetically nieve as you can get.
If you arn’t disgusted by her flippant attitude, I worry about you. I may have let my emotions get away from me, but in a public setting I would do no less than I have done here. Her kind of stupidity is what allows criminals to get away with murder.
scs
Dude, then you think I’m right. We said this above:
If you don’t think that “fakery” argument was made before the war, then you basically agree with me in terms of the Dem party and mainstream Dems.
As to your and TimF’s point that the mainstream Dems and “the left” are not the same – then I can sort of, maybe see your point. However, you have to draw the line somewhere, as there are many differnt types of Democrats/liberals, just as there are many different types of Republicans/righties, so for the purposes of discussion you have to draw the line somewhere, and I draw it at the mainstream party.
scs
Ahhh, the serial killer defense. Good one. Or also the Texas murder defense “He needed killin'”
Slartibartfast
Feingold hasn’t been briefed? Who knew
Steve
The Democrats don’t want conservative voters, Al. They just want you to stay home.
The idea that conservatives are disappointed with Bush for not being conservative enough, therefore Democrats should move to his right to pick them up, is just nuts.
I am perfectly happy to keep dueling around the margins, in hopes of picking up 51% in the next election rather than 49%, if it means a chance to hang onto some semblance of progressive principle. The Democratic Party is not some sports team that I pledge to root for until time immemorial.
The fact that you think Russ Feingold is the face of the Democratic Party on national defense, when not a single soul other than John Kerry has stepped up to support him, demonstrates how unserious your critique is. If you were intellectually consistent in your views, you’d be cheering the responsibility of the Democratic Party in distancing themselves from Feingold’s irresponsible initiative. But instead, you look at a 99-1 vote on the Patriot Act and think “wow, unless those Democrats drum the 1 no vote out of the party, I can’t take them seriously on national security.” What a joke.
The fact is, since you’re going to continue caricaturing the Democratic Party with the face of the individuals you find most unacceptable, there’s nothing the Democrats can do to get your vote. Which is why it’s not worth trying.
scs
You know Lines, it’s because of words like this “[edited]” that I tried to keep my sex mysterious for a long time here. I had the impression that many men would get sexist when they argued with a woman. And you know what, my treatment here suddenly got much worse when people started to figure out here my sex, even though my writings remained constant. Why is that I wonder? The castration complex is alive and well I fear.
Slartibartfast
Lopped off the question mark on that one.
So, given that Rockefeller voted to investigate this issue, why isn’t he co-sponsoring?
I’m thinking that our Democratic friends in the Senate are either chickenshit or…well, lying. I can’t think of a decent third alternative.
ppGaz
You mean, like you are, right, Al?
What a fucking buffoon.
Tim F.
After thinking about it for ten seconds or so, I’ve deleted Lines’s comment along with comments that blockquoted the offending text. That includes two of yours, SCS. I have also banned Lines.
Both John and I have repeatedly asked that you guys observe the most minimal standards of discourse. Vulgar sexism as a rhetorical weapon makes you look bad, it makes the site look bad and it really pisses me off, and I don’t think that we’re asking too much for you guys to keep it out of your posting.
Slartibartfast
Bravo, Tim.
scs
Okay, thanks Tim. I still think you and John should hit that ‘delete’ button, and sanction some people a little more often, because it might train people to stay civil. One can always hope I guess. You’re right, in the end it mostly makes John and you look bad, because it’s an indirect reflection of your writings and the people you attract to your blog.
capelza
Okay, now that the knickers are untwisted (though Lines went over the line, pun unintended, I have been called a tw*at on this board and just ognored it, though John deleted the post on his own). Scs, you really do need to grow a thicker skin. A political blog is not a koffee klatch.
You also need to back up your arguements with more than feelings and vague memories if you expect to be taken seriously. If you don’t want to be taken seriously, then by all means carry on…this is just a little advice from another woman.
MattDC
Capelza, I don’t know what you are talking about -vague memories? Scs made a valid point and you are just trying to get out of it without giving a solid reason.
DougJ
Heh. Leo is a parody…
Actually, PB, that was me, posting from the road. I can’t resist spoofing when I’ve got a new IP address. Looks like they caught me.
scs
Thanks for the grea advice “Capelza”. It’s great to hear from another woman. Do you know DougJ perhaps?
Al Maviva
The fact that you think Russ Feingold is the face of the
yeah, I guess you’re right Steve. I’m sitting here calling for some leading national Dem politician to have a Sistah Souljah moment with the daffy peaceniks and the folks being canonized by the leftist base, before I’d be willing to vote Dem. After what has happened to Joe Lieberman as a result of his hawkishness and occasional nods to social conservatives, it’s not intellectually serious to think that any Dem would alienate any portion of the base…
DougJ
Scs, I enjoy watching you obsess about me, but the truth is, except for the few fake Leonidas spoofs I threw in, I haven’t posted as anyone other than me in at least a month. And I don’t even post as myself here very often if you check.
scs
Krista, are you getting this? Is this enough evidence yet? Do I get an apology/correction?
scs
DougJ, WHAT do you do for a living? How do you have TIME to do this all day?
scs
Yes I always believe as truth the words from a man who uses other peoples websites as his own.
DougJ
Scs, two things you should know about me:
(1) I’m a tech boom/bubble millionaire who was semi-retired and is now in the doldrums of the early days of a new start-up.
(2) I’ve written a computer program that generates most of my posts along with alternative IPs, etc.
DougJ
So when I say “I haven’t posted”, technically, it’s true. Since I don’t write many of these posts myself.
scs
So I suppose we are not counting the loopy GOP4Me posts above, who also link to the ame website (scrutator)? That’s just a weird coincidence I’m sure.
Slartibartfast
So, just out of curiosity, can you tell if this:
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19946/#141375
was your work or not?
scs
Well if it’s true you’re a millionaire, and you seemed pretty cute in your bike pic- if you weren’t such a psycho weirdo nutjob, you’d actually be a good catch!
Slartibartfast
Or, maybe this:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/03/we_should_be_be.html#comment-14595112 ?
DougJ
Not me. They banned me over there. If I try to go there, I get redirected to a site depicting “vagina dentata”. I guess that’s Jeff Goldstein’s idea of a witty joke.
DougJ
if you weren’t such a psycho weirdo nutjob, you’d actually be a good catch!
Likewise.
GOP4Me
scs, I am NOT DougJ. I’ve consistently defended you, and I agree with you on most issues. Why would you think I’m DougJ? I’m a regular poster on scrutator.net, and I know the real Leonidas, and he’s not DougJ either. Why do you attack your friends along with your enemies? There aren’t very many of us conservatives around here, we have to stick together.
I’m talking with the real Leonidas about a potential lawsuit against DougJ, BTW. If he really is as wealthy as he says he is, he’s a juicy target and he’s about to learn that he’s a fool for libelling total strangers online.
scs
Oh gawd! Okay that’s it for me today.
ppGaz
I don’t agree with the decision to ban Lines, but if the crude sex organ references are the reason, then so be it. Call it a double standard if you want to, but I consider it okay to call a guy a p***k but I do not consider it okay to call a gal a c**t or a t**t. And I don’t do the latter. Not even the character you guys made up to troll the lefties, “scs”, can get me to violate that rule, although I give you credit for trying.
All of that said, if you really want to spruce the place up, you’ll get rid of that character, regardless of which spoofer … DougJ, John, or whoever … writes it. It’s an experiment that has run its course.
jg
Because your posts are so far right its almost a parody of the right wing position. I can’t speak for most hear but I don’t take you seriously. I can’t, its too depressing. If you are actually a representative of the right then we are fucked upwards and downwards as a country. You can not be reasoned with. You just repeat over and over right wing talking points that are based in fantasy. You have to be a parody. If you can look at tthe situation in Iraq and think it isn’t really happening, its all a fabrication of the media, things are really going swimmingly over there, how can we talk?
Pb
GOP4Me,
Don’t waste your time–scs thinks that *everyone* is DougJ. Which, I guess, is not surprising from someone who professes so much ignorance so flagrantly.
Trivia question for the adults: on what day did the largest anti-war protest ever take place, what was it protesting, and how many people participated?
Andrew
OMG.
DougJ is now threatening to sue himself on behalf of himself for posing as not himself.
Well played, sir.
ppGaz
This one?
scs
You know you’re right ppgaz, even you don’t stoop to those levels, so that is one thing good about you. I didn’t even catch that Lines was banned until I read your post. But it doesn’t matter anyway, because Lines is DougJ, (notice DougJ popped up right after that) and he will just come back in another form. As for me, I have and had a solution for you – don’t address me and I won’t address you. We obviously don’t get along in this forum. I have stuck to that, never engaging in first strike, but you unfortuantely have not. Until you do, it will be the same damn thing everytime, and I hate to bore the other readers.
ppGaz
DougJ is you and Lines?
The man is superhuman, that’s all I can say.
SeesThroughIt
I don’t think GOP4Me is DougJ, I think he’s a person trying to imitate DougJ, which is why I chide him to step his DougJ game up. He’s got a ways to go before he can approach the master.
scs
On that I can agree. Or maybe just a guy with NOTHING else to do.
ppGaz
Thank you.
searp
Al: the weak-on-defense critique offered by the Republicans centers around the notion that the only meaningful way to measure the strength of our defenses is a blank check to the military.
As a defense professional, I consider this to be political nonsense. The politicians have three responsibilities: (1) figure out a national defense strategy that works, (2) provide the resources to implement that strategy, and (3) provide management oversight to ensure that the strategy is properly executed.
The Republicans have sold the public on number (2) above as the end-all and be-all. That is, the national defense strategy that we have seen does not appear to be working, and there is no oversight. Quite to the contrary, our president positively shouts that he leaves most decisions up to “the commanders in the field”. That is an abdication of his responsibility. The public sees that ploy for what it is: an attempt to evade responsibility for the consequences of a poor strategy.
The truth about strategy is that it is more complicated than simply voting money and turning everything else over to the Pentagon. For more than 60 years, the linchpin of our strategy was collective action, based on an essentially defensive posture. We also comprehended the security implications of economic, diplomatic, and political activity. That is, we understood that our security strategy had to encompass the full spectrum of American capability.
Although these words are mouthed occasionally by this government, actions speak louder than words, and our unilateralism and focus on military as the default solution to challenges from abroad led directly to Iraq.
In sum, I think your discussion of defence and American security is dangerously naive. Think strategy, not money.
ppGaz
searp, excellent post.
GOP4Me
Funny, I feel the same way about you people. I just assumed half of you were spoofing left-wingers, and the other half were too crazy to reason with. I don’t know how we can talk, either, but if you people would honor your vows to leave America and move to Canada or New Zealand after Bush won in 2004, we’d be talking through our diplomatic representatives. Failing that, we might have to revive the anti-sedition laws to keep America from losing all semblance of morale in the ongoing GWOT.
Well, in all fairness, he is very tricky. He even fooled me a little while ago. I’m not taking it personally, I’m just upset that DougJ has muddied the waters around here so much that scs can’t even tell her friends from her enemies anymore. She’s not the only one, either. I think half of you people are parodies of parodies, and it’s all very confusing.
searp
ppGaz: I have been thinking about this for a long time. As I said, I am a defense professional, and I worry. I seem to have finally put my finger on just what I find so worrisome.
GOP4Me
And I don’t think you’re a real person, I think you’re a left-wing spoof hybrid of John Cole’s, written in collaboration with DougJ to torment me for trying to bring some sense and sanity to this pathetic rabble of a Trotskyite commentariat.
Two can play this game, DougJ.
Bob In Pacifica
Ah, Iran is about to move to the euro. A new war is afoot. Regime change in Iran.
Davebo
Geez!
What have I gotta do to get folks contemplating frivilous lawsuits against me?
Who knew conservative nut jobs were so litigious!
ppGaz
Keep working on it and writing about it. It’s an excellent bit of work.
Have you seen the Cobra II book? I haven’t got my copy yet but I think you would be interested in what they have to say.
Cobra II
Pb
searp,
Except when it’s a lie, like when it came to–for example–having enough troops to properly secure Iraq.
But I definitely agree that we need a *lot* more oversight in the defense department, and we’ve needed it for decades. It’s staggering how much money simply vanishes due to waste, incompetence, mismanagement, graft, sloppiness, you name it… we’re talking literally trillions of dollars that can’t be accounted for. Rumsfeld was supposed to reform all that, but guess what, billions of dollars are disappearing pretty quickly in Iraq now too…
Davebo
You really couldn’t make this crap up if you tried.
Pb
Bill Clinton.
Receiving Consensual Oral Sex While Liberal And Then Subsequently Lying About It So Your Wife Won’t Find Out.
searp
ppGaz: I haven’t seen it, I will get it.
I think there was a need for an armed response to 9/11, and Afghanistan made sense, although we didn’t do enough to trap our enemies. I know a Ranger who said that there were very few (300) soldiers actually deployed outside bases like Bagram.
The strategic question, though, is the nature of our broader response to Islamic extremism. I don’t see an effective military response to what is essentially a political/religious problem – the extremism is too widespread and has deep roots in many Muslim countries. The military component of an effective response, it seems to me, is to identify the biggest threats and address them, if need be, with special operations.
At the same time, we must have a much more effective political and diplomatic strategy. It does no good to tell people that they ought to want to be like us – what if they don’t? The strategy, it seems to me, has to be to identify, isolate and then neutralize the real threats. This requires collective action – the Arab populations must support the strategy. Hence our primary strategic effort must be to win a hearts and minds campaign among Muslims. This is extremely difficult at the best of times, and thanks to Iraq and our general denigration of Muslims these are not the best of times. I suspect there are many in the Middle East that view Iraq as a form of collective punishment. This is absolutely the wrong way to obtain cooperation, and therefore unlikely, in my opinion, to ever be a winning strategy. The bad people will simply disappear in a sea of angry Muslims, to rise again at a time and place of their choosing.
Slartibartfast
I’m assuming the “trillions” comes from this paragraph:
Or maybe this:
Which sort of points to a problem that predates the Bush administration. That it hasn’t been remedied may be a fair point, certainly, but that link doesn’t make it.
searp
Pb: The oversight doesn’t have to be adversarial, and in my opinion shouldn’t be. The idea is to make sure that the strategy is being executed.
Defense spending is a weird thing. I have been involved in it my entire professional life.
Generally speaking, Defense is the most professional department of government when it comes to spending money. This is really unsurprising, when you realize how much money they spend.
There are many distortions in the system that virtually guarantee waste and inefficiency, not least that the defense budget is the end-all and be-all mountain of pork/earmarks. The DoD has no control over this at all. It is pretty clear that DoD had no control over all the reconstruction money that disappeared in Iraq – wasn’t a defense acquisition official fired when she raised a flag? Money only gets spent like that because the political level demands it.
The defense budget provides political cover for all kinds of things that otherwise wouldn’t be funded. Think engineering graduate schools.
I’d say the biggest source of waste is the penny-wise and pound-foolish syndrome. If I have to pay $100.00 a night for a hotel, and the perdiem is $97.98, guess what happens? On the other hand, we buy $300 billion worth of aircraft for no reason other than constituencies (major aircraft manufacturerers, congresscritters) want the work.
Clever
Harkin [D-IA] is co-sponsoring Feingold’s censure resolution.
Wasn’t this was this thread was originally about?
If so inclined, drop the good Senator a thank you.
Slartibartfast
OTOH sometimes oversight can get you the Duke Cunninghams. Who will guard the guardians?
Slartibartfast
Thanks for the news break, Clever.
Pb
searp,
I agree that oversight shouldn’t be adversarial–but it should be in place. I also believe that there are likely systemic problems with the procedures involved that make things more wasteful than they already are. But really, the sorts of things that happened in Iraq simply should have been prohibited in the first place.
ppGaz
searp, we spend so much time flinging poo at each other around here, when somebody actually has spot-on commentary and ideas, it’s like getting a tub of iced Gatorade thrown onto your head. Refreshing, and attention-getting.
Your comments are some of the best work I’ve ever seen in here. Keep working on these ideas and writing about them.
You’re able to look at this stuff from outside the prescribed box of right-left, tastes great-less filling stuff we are used to.
searp
Well, I also agree with Clever, better to stay on-topic. I just thought Al’s post needed an answer that went into some detail.
On topic: good on Harkin. If you believe, as I do, that the President willfully disobeyed the law, then Feingold has a reasonable political response. I’d prefer that a judge confirmed that (1) the president had no right to operate outside of FISA and (2) FISA is wholly applicable to the NSA program before we got to the political consequences, but events don’t wait.
searp
Pd – absolutely agree with your comments on oversight, that was the point of my original post. Strategy, resources, and oversight, that is the DUTY of our political representatives.
Clever
Searp,
Wasn’t trying to be pushy, as I agree with ppGaz on your commentary, so don’t quit on account of me. I just needed to make sure that I wasn’t posting in the wrong thread. ;)
Al Maviva
Nice filibuster about the budget and contracting process without actually saying anything specific. It’s so nice when somebody says something spot on and intelligent and vague enough that everybody on the left side of the blog agrees with it.
Removing tongue from cheek, great points in principle, Searp. But two questions.
First, how do you figure first that U.S. involvement in Iraq is unilateral? I seem to recall roughly 40 nations offering military assistance and while we can mock Fiji for being small or Poland for being poor, their involvement is non-trivial from a legal and diplomatic standpoint.
Second, who in the community of nations – I presume by that you mainly mean France, Germany, and our Arab friends – is going to actually do anything about Iran, other than finger-wagging? I’m not sure we can allow the fearful Zionist Entity to do anything about it… any pre-emptive strike is likely to be viewed regionally as just another Zionist oppression of the Muslim peoples, and met with increased resistance and attacks. France is actually coming on board with the saber rattling, but I presume as usual they are willing to fight to the last American if that’s what it takes to keep Iran from nuking neighbors. Similarly, it appears that two members of the UNSC P-5 are blocking any action, including diplomatic or economic sanctions, against Iran; just as the same two members are preventing any action other than tongue clucking over the ongoing genocide in Sudan. Suggestions for achieving joint action?
Andrei
Oh good lord. If of the troop deployment in Iraq with all our allies, if American troops make up some 95% of the troop population, that’s pretty much unilateral. Of the money spent on Iraq, if some significantly high portion of the money spent is in the same range, guess what? I don’t give a rat’s ass with how hard it is for them to help us, but when I’m trying to pay off a debt of $1000 and you give me a nickel, guess what, you’re not helping me.
My problem with letting guys like you trying to run the country with your meathead policy logic is that you’re going to run the train over the cliff with me in it. I couldn’t give a crap if you want to screw you own life up, stop screwing up the rest of ours.
You can’t have “joint” action until everyone involved agrees on the action. Simple really. Do you tell your wife what to do all the time and then get mad when she actually doesn’t agree? No… you compromise, discuss the issue, and figure out what best to do *as a couple*. Heck.. I’d be happy if the GOP would stop treating the “left” like beaten down housewives, stand up and be men and start talking to the other half like they actually want to live with us for the rest of their lives. Because if they don’t, then I guess we really do need our own Civil War II in this country to prove how to really solve the problem.
Krista
I have already apologized for losing my temper with you.
Do you want me to say, “Yes, scs, you’re right. Everybody that you think is DougJ, actually IS DougJ”? Sorry, but I’m not going to say that. And there are a few reasons for it:
1. You’ve accused so many people of being DougJ that I’ve lost track.
2. He’s admitted to posting from different computers, yes, but gave no confirmation of any of his possible aliases. We all know he spoofs – it’s common knowledge. But we don’t know who he’s spoofing as. We can only guess.
3. You’re the only one who is interested in guessing. Me? I really don’t give a shit about who any of DougJ’s aliases are. For all I know, you’re one.
I don’t know why you’re asking me to validate your suspicions, anyway. According to your own words, I’m a simpleton, a dolt, and a follower. If you’re so certain that you’re correct in this, you really shouldn’t need the validation of someone like me.
Or are you that certain after all?
searp
Al:
I suppose it was vague, I should write a book.
I suppose I consider the Iraq invasion to be unilateral because the President made great hay about how he wasn’t going to be deterred by the UN or any other multilateral organization, including NATO. I suppose I consider it unilateral because it never would have happened if George Bush hadn’t ordered it. I do concede he consulted somewhat with the Brits. Call it bilateral, if you will.
The political and diplomatic support supplied by the community of the willing has had zero impact, so I disagree with your characterization of the coalition of the willing. The bald fact is that it isn’t just Old Europe that was against it, it was about 95% of the UN general assembly.
I completely disagree with your (common, but silly) views on Iran. The government is virulently anti-American and is working to obtain nuclear weapons. However, strikes of any kind won’t solve our political problem with Iran, they will exacerbate it. At the moment, we really don’t have the capability to invade and occupy the country, and I cannot see any kind of strike leading to regime change. Strikes are bound to solidify and intensify political support for the regime, which is counterproductive.
Strikes are an act of war, and we can expect to see a serious riposte in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Palestine, maybe Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. My point is that we’re not talking about something where the opponent has no options, so “pre-emptive” strikes doesn’t mean the war is over before it began, it just means we initiated the war.
We have had a Cold War with Iran since 1978 or so. I say the real options are to intensify that Cold War and/or actually talk directly to them. The talk option isn’t unprecedented – we have talked to our enemies before and will again. Maybe that can help, maybe not. The Cold War option requires participation by Russia and maybe China. I assume that is what the administration is trying to do diplomatically, and I support it. I support the administration’s diplomatic efforts on Iran, and think the bombing/invasion talk is, well, stupid and counterproductive.
capelza
huh? So this is a way of saying that I, a 49 y/o woman, am Doug J, too? I can only dimly aspire to his greatness. Plus I have to say, if you can’t tell the girls from the boys, well..at least you didn’t call me “crapelza” and call me gay and a liar with no sense of humour…(see above in the thread).
As for the actual topic of this thread, it just pisses me off to much to comment. My Senator (D) got an earful already.
RonB
Searp, I don’t think you should give any credence to the idea that Iran is definitely angling for the bomb-no one has concluded this with any evidence other than the fact that they got their shit from AQ Khan(which has only been a crime for Iran so far). They hit the black market because we have scuttled every above board sale they tried to close.
As a signatory to the NPT, Iran has every right to do what they are doing. They have legitimate environmental and economic concerns that nuclear energy would solve. I agree that we need to talk with Iran-stonewalling them is not practical or fruitful. I don’t like what Iran does to support hostility towards Israel nor its own human rights record, but neither of those things have stopped us from talking to or befriending a nation before. Keep em close, open them up bit by bit. Diplomacy, though glacially slow in forward movement, is the best way to effect a change.
RonB
I would too, if there were any I could see.
Al Maviva
Searp, that was a really good takedown of the argument I didn’t make in favor of attacking Iran.
How do you figure talks will play out? Iran is bragging about how they jerked around the Europeans for three years while building a clandestine nuclear weapons program. The EU broke off talks in part because of Iran’s bragging about it, which had to be somewhat humiliating for the EU. You think the Great Satan will do better where France has failed?
The other problem is practical. What ought we to have in our hip pocket to concede to Iran? Their current top demand is the eradication of Israel, #2 is the eradication of the U.S. I’m just wondering what our bargaining chips are, and what outcome we would hope for in the talks. Diplomacy is great, but it normally takes two to make something happen.
Then there’s what Mohammad Al Baradei said a couple weeks ago.
Pharniel
I think it’s spot on notes searp, the Iran (and, well, millitant islamist) issue isn’t going to be solved with troops and bombs, but the way we beat the Russians; Blue Jeans and Rock Music (Though at this point it’s prolly Teh Interweb and CellPhones, but the idea is the same).
They’ve got huddled masses yearning to breathe free, let ’em get good and agitated about not being able to breathe free where they live. Even the East Germans eventually fell.
This is of course easier if we can get some neighbors up and running in with a moderate (by comparison, think turkey, or maybe even indonisia) government and good times.
‘course….if you want to be machivelian about it, Iran nuking a neihboring country (like, i don’t know, afghanistant, or saudi arabia, or Iraq) might do wonders for giving the moderate faithfull a good dose of ‘whoa fuck, we should prolly keep mad fuckers from having that kind of power’
ahh well. a man can dream.
but seriously, the wounded machismo of the current ‘right’ is just….obnoxious. And yes, i’m pretty sure the founding fathers would be showing everyone who voted for the abortion of a bill called “the patriot act” thier goon hands, because, y’know, secret searches are totally american.
searp
Al: I certainly do think we’d have more luck than France. I am sure that the Iranian government views us as the more credible threat, therefore we have a lot more to discuss, and a lot more leverage. I predict that we will, eventually, talk to the Iranians, as we do not have any other good options. That is, unless we have completely lost our minds. The talks may be very, ahem, unfriendly, but we let Krushchev do his shoe-pounding thing without nuking the Soviets.
I suppose I read too much into your “do something” about Iran, and jumped to the conclusion that you were in favor of some sort of bold action. In retrospect, I am not sure what that would be short of some sort of military action. I may suffer from a lack of imagination.
RonB: I do think the Iranians want a weapons capability. I think they have wanted one since my ex-boss was sent to the US to train as a nuclear engineer under the Shah. I also think they are genuinely interested in power generation. Doesn’t have to be one or the other. I discount the NPT argument for the simple reason that the provisions of the NPT envision strict and voluntary compliance, not having to deal with inveterate cheating to develop weapons.
I could go on about the NPT, which unfortunately I see as a dead letter. I won’t.
The diplomatic efforts that I see are indirect, and hence much less effective, but the administration does seem to be trying to get the Security Council members to sign up for some sort of collective action.
Pharniel: I wouldn’t be so sure about the huddled masses. We thought the same just before they tossed out the Shah. I also believe that the Iranian effort to acquire nukes is for two reasons: provide a defensive capability against, well, you know who, and to shore up their desire to dominate the neighborhood.
I do not believe that they’d try to just wipe out Israel, too big a downside there, nor do I believe they have the capability to eradicate the US, so I discount that as posturing. Worrisome posturing, but posturing. If Khamenei starts saying those things repeatedly, then I’d worry more, but Ahmedinijad has about as much power as his “liberal” predecessor: none.
The Other Steve
Tim F. – I think it’s about time scs was banned.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending Lines or Andrei or anybody else for using nasty language. But scs is clearly an instigator in all of this.
I mean, it’s been clear for a long time that he’s a parody troll and continues to play games to get people riled up. Now don’t get me wrong. I happen to enjoy parody trolling when it’s funny like DougJ. But he’s not even funny and I think most of us are just growing tired of this game.
Everybody else: Just ignore him, and stop responding to his inane posts. Trolls like attention, and by responding your just giving him what he wants.
Pb
The Other Steve,
Yeah, I came to the same conclusion a while back. The poor ignorant idiotic affronted victim schtick was run into the ground some time ago.
scs
Really OSteve? Please let me learn from you. Please highlight the post or posts I made that you found “instigated” anything in this thread. If I said anything impolite or completely ridiculous here before Lines called me what he did, I would love for it to be pointed out to me, so that I can either apologize or explain.
scs
Krista, I’m not asking you to apologize for losing your temper. I already accepted that. I’m was asking more for an apology/correction for your constant comments poking fun at statements on my efforts to deal with DougJ, as basically being paranoia. As you can se, if you linked ot the ‘Scrutator’ link above, DougJ was called out by that site for borrowing that website creators name and website and then making ridiculous posts on other blogs. Not only that but GOP4ME has the same link. That’s concrete evidence right there. It just takes a little leap of logic to put all these tidbits together to guess the extent of the DougJ infestation here. It’s not my paranoia unfortunately, it’s real and it’s large. And while it may not bother you, it does bother me, because again I read here to find a variety of opinions, not just see majority spoofs, so I feel the need to speak against it. And as to me calling you a simpleton, it was all in good fun Krista, and you just need to get a sense of humour when you blog.
Andrei
I find it supremely ironic that people can be banned for using vulgar language but not get banned for even more vulgar content contributions in the form of lazy intellectual logic, misrepresentation of the facts, or generally acting in a manner that is consider troll bait.
I mean really.. how bassackwards is that? Four letters… A “c”, a “t”, an “n” and a “u” strung together in a particular order is somehow the functional equivalent of punching someone in the face, but when someone flatly misrepresents factual information incorrectly like so many in the blog world have been doing for some number of years now, it’s nothing more than a minor infraction or harmless disagreement.
Banning people like me or Lines for vulgar language but not banning others for the obvious negative contributions to the general discussion is the functional equivalent of giving marijuana users 15 years in prison while slapping a child molestor on the back of the hand and then simply relocating them to a new state.
Oh wait…
scs
Let’s review my posts here and I will give a summary of my “instigation” to OSteve. First I posted an excerpt from the NYT about Saddam and WMD fakery. Then I had a couple of fairly polite posts with TimF who said “ Most sensible opponents to the Iraq war made that same argument in 2002”. and then Lines who said “ As Tim pointed out, many of the anti-Iraq invasion group had made all of those arguments in 2002”, and then I said “ I said “Please refresh my memory. I don’t remember that being an anti-war argument before the war”.
Lines, who then called me a “little girl, some bad words, and who then gives a link to some blog I’m not too familiar with FROM JUNE 2003 from over one year AFTER THE WAR to bolster his claim that there was much attention to the “fakery” idea BEFORE the war. Yeah, that’s a guy who knows how to win an argument. If you don’t have a fact that fits, cite one that doesn’t relate, and call yourself the debate winner. And he has the gaul to say this to me “Please grow up and stop compounding on your lies and misdirections,” Priceless.
scs
Because Andrei, they usually go hand in hand. Someone who doesn’t have the self-control or the mental resources to refrain from using vulgar language, usually doesn’t have the debating skills necessary to make logical arguments. If they did, they wouldn’t even have to go there.
Krista
You know how you go on about having figured DougJ out because of his writing style? Well, I think I may have figured you out. When the thread is at it’s height of activity, and has the most traffic, you’re all sweetness and light, and earnestly held overgeneralizations. Then, when the thread starts winding down, and only the hardcores are left, lo and behold…out come the claws. When called on it, you claim to just be joking and tell people to get a sense of humour. Yet, you’ve gone, wounded, to John and Tim because you want them to tell them who’s trolling you. It’s all in good fun, unless you’re the target.
You know, you’re a really convincing persona. I’m impressed, Doug.
DougJ
Scs is clearly some kind of parody troll. But I do think she’s kind of ruining things around here — too many ridiculous confrontations with people is not good for a blog. That’s one thing I generally try to avoid when I troll.
So scs, you’ve had your fun, but I think it is time to unmask yourself or take it down a notch. Tim and John run a good site and your ruining it.
Steve
Stop hurting America!
Andrei
Then I’ll be willing to bet that the satire or humor of Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Penn and Teller, Lenny Bruce, Chris Rock or even Mark Twain for that matter just goes right over your head.
scs
I was just giving you a little taste of your own treatment. Remember you ranted and raved on how I needed “therapy” because I took blog insults too seriously? And I said something back like “well let’s see how you feel when YOU are insulted?” Well it doesn’t feel so good now, does it Krista? – as we can see from your reaction here. I don’t see YOU taking it in good humour. Just a little learning lesson here- called practice what you preach.
As to me coming back when the thread is winding down – I can’t stay on here for hours at a time just swatting comments. I do have things to attend to. When I’m done, I come back and sometimes check how the thread evolved. That’s why I do that.
scs
God you amuse me Douglas.
scs
There’s a difference between a comedy and politcal debate. If you want us to take your comments as comedy – swear away.
Krista
Actually, you’re wrong. As I said earlier,if you want to think of me as a dolt, that’s your prerogative. I really could not care less. I was just honouring the honesty that you and I share, by pointing out that you’re being a bit of a hypocrite. Because you definitely dish it out. But not only can you not take it, you deny dishing it out in the first place.
scs
And by the way, I often notice the worst comments about me occur after I give notice that I’m leaving or after I’m gone, so that’s another reason why the claws come out later. As to me being DougJ, look at my sentence style history. There is nothing similar. I am the queen of long complex sentences and long posts. I think that means I won’t get Alheimers, according to that study on the writing styles of nuns. You’re not too good at DougJ sleuthing, just leave it to me, I’ll take care of it.
scs
Well here’s the thing- I try not to dish it out FIRST. That’s a rule I try to go by. So I object to someone dishing it out first – that’s what I complain about. Once someone starts it, I have no choice but to go with the “dishing”. And I think you started it with me before, which you even admitted to. Not that I’m really still mad – like I said I’m willing to let it go.
ppGaz
scs is in fact DougJ. I have it directly from the principal actor in the story.
The real surprise is who DougJ really is. He is not DougJ, of that I can assure you. The real DougJ/scs/GOP4 is a person who is practically a household name in political circles.
You are participating in the greatest nested spoofapalooza in the history of the Blog World.
We are all extras in this movie, kids.
scs
And you believe him?
scs
And you believe him?
ppGaz
What makes you think that he/you is/are a him?
Or that anyone here thinks so?
scs
And I believe him?
scs
You know, you all may get your wish soon. I’ve been looking over at Tom Maguire’s site recently and I am amazed at the difference there is between here and there. The posters never get into these stupid flame wars that happen here. I’d say the IQ level is definitely higher over there, as people seem to enjoy sticking to the facts, not stirring up immature trouble. They actually have something intelligent to say over there. The downside there is that sometimes the topics can be a little dry and not as varied as here; but on the other hand, I think that very dryness tends to discourage the idiots that you get here. So there must be more than this is blogland!
CaseyL
Is anyone still interested in talking about censure?
At last report, Kerry, Boxer, Harkin and Menendez had decided to support Feingold’s call for censure. (Kerry actually was first on the boat, backing Feingold immediately).
I called Harkin’s office to thank him. Other than that, I haven’t made any other calls, and my Senators (Cantwell and Murray) are still twiddling their thumbs.
Does anyone have any more info?
ppGaz
Well, then you should fit right in.
Write and tell us about it.
Al Maviva
Searp, I’m not sure I’m with you about the fundamental sanity, or modesty of intentions, of Iran’s ruling class. I think that’s a premise that you have to buy into before believing that there can be good faith (and more importantly effective) negotiations. The Iranian theocrats appear to suffer from the same delusions that AQ suffers from – that establishing a glorious medieval Caliphate across the middle eastern crescent is attainable. If press accounts are accurate, the noises coming from Iran – that some of the ruling theocrats are losing stomach for the nuclear gambit – might indicate some future willingness to deal, probably due to the credible threat of yet another cowboy U.S. president’s antics. I can’t see any deal happening until the former head of the Pasdaran’s wet jobs unit is removed from the Iranian presidency. Nor do I have much optimism about the so-called moderates. What exactly is a moderate poltician in Iran? One who advocates machine gunning only half as many pro-democracy protestors? A bloody tyrant who is occasionally willing to deal with the West?
I wouldn’t expect most of Western Europe to step up much. They have domestic Islamist problems that they literally don’t know how to handle, and while they seem happy to work extensively with the U.S. at the staff level (law enforcement, intel) they don’t appear to believe that they can afford to be seen supporting any U.S. efforts anywhere. This is reinforced, of course, due to their extensive corporate ties to the ME and North Africa. The only promising thing I’ve heard w/r/t Europe and Iran is of intensive work behind the scenes with Russia, trying to push Putin into pushing the Iranians into non-proliferation mode. I’m not sure he has the power to do so, and not sure how Putin feels about dealing with us. The entry of the former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO still gives him legitimate security concerns, and he might view Russia as well served by anything diverting U.S. attention from Europe. So the negotiations with the U.S. could just be with the goal of extracting concessions, in exchange for halfhearted Russian help. Still, Russia’s Islamist problems may give him some incentive to act. Russia’s steadfast refusal to move on the issue in the UNSC hints about where those negotiations are, presently, but I hold out hope. I think the only non-military endgame is if the mullahs see the U.S. and Russia rattling sabers in unison, note Western Europe quietly pressing, and decide to get rid of their president, and then we enter into a dirty handed temporary deal of some sorts with them. I’m not optimistic because from what I’ve seen of the middle east, the violent and most zealous men usually get their way; it’s not a place where it pays to be a thoughtful moderate. Nor would I want to handicap a fight between a popular former revolutionary guards leader with extensive intel ties and experience at raising violent street mobs, and a handful of old mullahs with zealous religious followings. In short, I see us having a lot fewer options than you do because I think that jokes about Republicans aside, they really are theocrats and there’s no telling what God has been telling them to do lately…
scs
I have already posted there multiple times and found it very enjoyable and produtive. I usually get a lot of responses to my posts and not one of them yet have been the idiotic snark I get here. If they think I have a good idea, they tell me, and if someone thinks I’m mistaken, they tell me that too, but they don’t have to call me a “slut” to explain why. Tom MaGuire keeps a tight lid on the posters there, for instance he stopped DougJ’s foolishness there in it’s tracks, and scared him off, unlike here. So yes, I will be writing you about what happens over there. I will follow all former regular non-lefties here such as Stormy, Darrell, Mac Buckets, to their great trail beyond. On the other hand, I may stop over here every once a while just to stir up the crazies for a little fun.
scs
Thoughtful post Al Maviva. I think the Iranian middle class still has some power to cause trouble for the the Iranian president, and if they feel that their incomes will take a hit, they might end up doing so. I agree that world unity coupled with the threat from the “crazy cowboy” might be the only way to have a non-military solution to Iran.
ppGaz
Ten dollars to anyone who can figure out what Al Maviva just said, and restate it as a limerick, by 11:00 pm blogtime.
ppGaz
From a review of the Pew Poll today via WaMo.
Perry Como
There once was a fellow from France
He liked his red wine and to dance
Islam came a fightin’
And Frenchie was frightened
So much that he crapped in his pants
ppGaz
There was no winner on the Al Maviva – Limerick contest, so the prize will roll over to the next big undecipherable Maviva post. Which should come tomorrow, if history is any teacher.
ppGaz
Sorry Perry, the contest closed at 11:00 EST.
But it looks like you are ready for the next one!
Good job!
The Other Steve
That’s funny, because after DougJ got caught over at Tom Maguire’s site, I started trolling the place myself. Man, do I ever have them going too… They completely think I’m one of them and are just lapping it up.
I figure in a few more weeks I’ll reveal to them all that I’m a parody troll and the joke will all be on them.
As to my psuedoname over there, scs… you’ll just have to guess. I’m not going to give up my gig quite yet. :-)
RonB
It’s fine to think it, but we really don’t know-think about who is pushing the idea that they are going for the bomb. It isn’t El Baradei, no matter how badly Al misreads what he said. Ever since they got caught they have been under a freeze by the IAEA. They have now grown tired of waiting for the world to give them permission to use atomic science. They have a nationalist president who, like it or not, is a fairly good brinksmanship player. If it is true that a nuclear energy program is a matter of national pride, then really, what grounds do we have to stop them other than the vagaries of “we don’t think they should”, or upon whatever crackhead ideas people like Al put out about caliphates and nuking Israel and the like. Al is a very smart paranoid with a very good imagination. I’m just saying I would beware any speculation that resembles his. Like I said, there’s a reason Iran went to the black market to get its uranium and tech, and it has something to do with us. There won’t be much in the way of effective diplomacy with Iran until we undo some of our skulduggery towards them since 79. Or 54. Jesus.
RonB
LMAO
There once was a man named Maviva,
who worried about Tel-Aviva
he frets about nukes
from the Iranian pukes
but can’t get anyone to believ-a.
Sorry, it’s all I had. Someone else must be able to do better. Please.
RonB
Oh, damn it, I didnt look at the timestamp, PPGaz, I didint know my entry was late.
scs
I bet I can guess. I won’t say the id but I bet it’s a female name, right? It’s the one every one was suspicious of at first, but that person kept denying it, so they let it go, but it never quite fooled me. I’ll be curious at the unveiling. Even so, even if there are fakers on there, at least the fakers are somewhat well behaved enough so that you can’t really tell that much. They know TMag will crack down on their ass otherwise. For instance, you don’t have anyone calling someone else a slut on there very often. Spoofing Lite I can handle. Just not all spoofing, all the time.
Pb
I’d better practice for the next contest anyhow, I’ll surely miss it…
Iranain mullahs are nuts,
But they’re cowed by George Bush the klutz.
In a nucular strike,
all the mullahs say ‘psyche’!
But in any case, I’m still a putz!
You can’t trust the mullah’s Theocracy,
to stand against Bush’s Democracy.
His faith is so strong,
whenever he’s wrong–
so join his fascistic Plutocracy!
searp
RonB: I certainly agree with trying to undo the skulduggery, which I think amounts to talking to Iran honestly.
It is very reasonable to be suspicious of any characterization of Iran provided by Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush. However, there are independent sources that suggest Iran is interested in nuclear weapons AND has acted maliciously towards the US. Read Bob Baer’s book – he fingers them for blowing up our embassy in Lebanon and other dirty-war type actions against us.
Like India, it isn’t atomic science that they want, it is the capability to produce unlimited quantities of highly enriched uranium, and/or plutonium. That is, they want to control the entire nuclear fuel cycle.
This can be legitimized by an argument that they must be able, on their own, to produce fuel for power plants. This is the NPT argument. However, I do not view that argument as compelling, even if it is their “right” under the NPT.
I think the real reason they want the nuclear fuel cycle is to produce weapons, and whatever efficiencies they get on the energy production side would be a byproduct.
That is, of course, only an opinion.
RonB
Well, one good turn…our two nations on an international level probably need to kiss and make up- as simplistic as that sounds, it may be time to let bygones be bygones on both sides, unless we would like to continue this hostility by proxy based solely on mistrust. The way we are both going right now it can only get worse.
Is there really anything wrong with this type of self determination or do we limit that benefit to countries we deem worthy?
I think you have it upside down, but events can change my mind as I’m sure it could yours. Visit Nuclear Iran, he doesn’t post often but Amir does have a lot of linked resources that flesh out the main reasons for atomic science in Iran and the long delayed history of its quest for atomic power.
searp
Al: short answer. Yes, I think collectively the Iranian leadership is sane. Having a completely different worldview from ours doesn’t make you insane. Their worldview is coherent, even if we disagree with it. Much of what they say is commonly believed across the entire Middle East.
I don’t expect to hear much from the Iranian leadership about a Caliphate, which was a Sunni institution. Shia Islam looks for guidance from an Imam or marja. Sunnis reject all these notions.
I think Western Europe IS stepping up diplomatically, so I am not sure what “stepping up” means in this context. As for commercial ties, those are always a consideration. US companies do plenty of business with Iran through subsidiaries.
The real question is whether we can get support for our policy, which seems to be focused on sanctions, from Russia and China. They may have the view that Iranian threats are less important than Iranian oil or Iranian commercial ties. Bluntly, they don’t feel threatened by Iran. One can only wonder what kind of arguments we’re using to persuade them otherwise. I imagine there is a lot of horse trading behind the scenes.
Myself, I’d prefer that we took the direct approach, because it solves a lot of these problems. It may not work, I’d be the first to admit, but I don’t see any other reasonable options. As I said originally, military action will only exacerbate our problems in the Middle East.
Pooh
There once was a man named Maviva
From his keyboard he seldom did leave-a
Fight the good fight he must
In Bush, Yoo and Rummy he does trust
Who else you gonna believe-a?
He came from a place called Cold Fury
About Iraq and then Iran he had worry
He hates Liberal Left Looneys
Filled with the Juice Ballooney
Post done, back to his lair he Scurries
(I keed al, I keed)
ppGaz
Fine, fine limerick work, all.
Now we just have to wait for Al to post another of his term papers, and we can try it again.
Al Maviva
Searp, you’re correct on the Caliphate point on the technicality of the name, but the Persians do have a history of leading or trying to lead Islamist empires. If the Tragedy of Andalusia is fresh enough in the South Asian cultural memory that Bin Laden can invoke it as a rallying cry, then surely the destruction of the much more recent Qajar Empire is equally relevant. The territory of that empire extended northward to the Russian border, and one wonders if the Iranians’ view those territories similarly to the way the Sunnis view Europe, which is Muslim land by right of conquest, right up to the gates of Vienna, and up to the Loire valley. I can understand Iranian meddling in Iraq; it’s a border state and given the history, Iran would probably love nothing more than to turn Iraq into a hopeless mess incapable of self governance, much less an economic and political success that could pose a threat. Less clear is why Iran has sponsored Hezbollah and the destruction of Lebanon, and the extent to which it has a hand on the controls in Syria. I think Iran, in keeping with its history, has designs that extend past its current borders. How far their goals extend isn’t clear to me at all, but I would be genuinely shocked if at least the Mullahs and their religio-nationalistic revolutionary guards followers are not aiming at the restoration of some type of empire. Which I would be fine with me were it not for their fondness toward sponsoring anti-western terrorism, and their brutal methods of governance. That, and my suspicion that they mean what they say about destroying the U.S. (which doesn’t mean it will happen, but they can still do a lot of damage). Thoughts?
GOP4Me
scs,
If you actually look at the Scrutator site, you’ll notice that there are several people running it. One of them would be me, GOP4Me. So it’s not a big mystery why DougJ and I have the same link, he’s parodying another commentator there. I am not parodying a commentator there, I AM a commentator there. I’ve made it my stated mission to come to this blog and drive away the left-wing Communist presence from the commentariat. Why would DougJ make such a claim?
You say you’re not DougJ because you’re writing style is so different, and I agree with you. Similarly, my sentences are substantially more complex than his, my posts are longer, and my vocabulary is noticeably different. So you’re on the wrong trail here in your DougJ sleuthing (not that I don’t support you doing it, mind you; if we’re going to sue him later it might come in handy if you figure out all of his pseudonyms).
I don’t really expect you to believe me, because after all the abuse he’s given you on this site you don’t seem capable of distinguishing friend from foe any longer. But on the off-chance I am overestimating the damage he has inflicted upon your ability to trust in others, I will reiterate, I am NOT DougJ. If I didn’t respect you and agree with your positions, I wouldn’t try to make this clear to you anymore. But I like you, scs, whereas I despise all these liberal kooks who make the same accusation you do. I wouldn’t explain to them how wrong they are, whereas I will take the time to do so with you. Again, why would DougJ go through this much trouble? Why is it that you think people who agree with you are your enemies?
scs
Answer: We limit that benefit to countries we deem worthy.
I find it refreshing how often I see the Iranian theocratic leadership admired for their intelligence, sanity, and leadership skills on here, and how often I see American leadership castigated for their fascist incompetent craziness. Maybe we should look into immigrating to Iran. Or maybe we could transfer the port management deal to them now.
RonB
Well, we disagree, scs. You may have assumed American exceptionalism is the rule, but other countries don’t see it that way and I wouldnt expect them to. I have a big problem with a foreign policy that always says “my way or the highway”. I’m loath to bring a world kicking and screaming into what we call civilization, the notion of the white mans burden dont do it for me. Doesn’t work for them all that well either.
scs
GOP4ME – I looked over at that site and did see that that id is a writer on that site. I would assume that the person here is the same writer on that site or they would have commented on that in that recent spoofing post. However, as I looked through the blog, another thing I noticed is that I also saw your thread comments scattered in the blog, often sandwiched between past Cat 5 suspected DougJ clones from here, for instance Paddy O’Shea. I won’t say the other names, or people will whine. That is very odd to me. I don’t know how one becomes a writer on that site. How many writers are there on that site, GOP4ME, and how did you become a writer, and how long have you been a writer on that site? Just curious. Hope you don’t mind the questions.
RonB
scs, two thoughts: America is the 800 pound gorilla. Our foreign policy has the ability to wreck and empower at will. I have no problems criticizing it when it makes momentous decisions that affect people around the globe, including us.
Secondly, it is far easier to diagnose our own internal problems from our standpoint as American citizens, but are often woefully unprepared to understand other countries with the same frame.
RonB
(laughing) Boy, you’re right. Why would he ever say such a thing.
GOP4Me
Well, if you look through the archived posts you’ll see that I wrote quite a few of the older ones. I haven’t been able to write as much lately, due to moving twice within 3 months, and due to some work-related issues. (Plus my wife is sick, and I have to deal with that.) But I’ve been posting on that site since it began, in January. There are about 7 or 8 posters, the number varies somewhat since we’ve all been having our own real-life events and occurrences interfere. (For example, RTGthe3rd and I used to be two of the main posters, but we’ve both cut back quite a bit.) But the other main ones that occur to me right now are Lysistrata, Leonidas, Comanche, Sgt. Scream, and I think we’ve given BigRedElephant posting privileges, too. EJ Rhodes is a regular who may have posting privileges; there are some other regular conservative posters who may or may not have posting privileges. It’s enough people that I have trouble keeping track of it, plus I’m not the only one running the site. Basically, we’re a bunch of friends who met up online and decided to start a blog and start taking the Internet back from the lying, sneering Kossacks and kooks and moonbats who’ve been overrunning the place.
That’s also why I’m posting here now, this site used to be a bastion of conservative thought when I was just a lurker around here. Now that conservatives are all leaving the site due to the deprecations of swine like pee-pee gas and DougJ, I feel compelled to come in swinging and do something about it. An unfortunate side-effect of this is that some of the left-wing trolls from this site (among them pee-pee and Paddy O’Shea) have migrated over to Scruator, and are currently wrecking the place. I want to ban them, but the other posters think that’s a bit too extreme. We did just ban DougJ, not that it’ll do us much good in the long run. I fully expect him to come back under some other pseudonym and some phony IP address.
For the record, I don’t think Paddy O’Shea is a DougJ spoof. The IP address is different (although, again, you may be right and DougJ may be using multiple IP addresses; if I find out that’s the case, Paddy is banned that very same day). The Internet is a big enough place that 3 or 4 separate individual moonbat kooks can still ruin it for the rest of us.
GOP4Me
Just what is THAT supposed to mean?
Tim F.
Not a bad idea. In fact I haven’t observed a single Communist here since you showed up, GOP. Not a one. You could almost say that your work here is done.
scs
How did you meet up online? Did you used to frequent similar sites? Can you name some of them?
ppGaz
I’m sorry, but Al Maviva’s most recent post does not qualify for a limerick contest. It isn’t long enough or indecipherable enough to meet the Al Maviva Standard established here long ago.
However, the day is young, and Al is just getting his coffee. Let’s be patient and see what he comes up with later in the morning.
scs
Since January, huh. A 3 month old site. Lots of posters for being just three months old. Good for you. I guess since you all just met up online, you are all really good friends with your fellow writers and you all know each other really well, right? Inside and out I’m sure.
GOP4Me
Good thing you don’t keep any mirrors around you. This place is a den of Trotskyites, as far as I can tell. Though when it comes to forcing socialized medicine down Americans’ throats, some of you can be downright Stalinist.
Well, we met up a couple different places. Some of the more recent ones emailed us after we started Scrutator, which is why I’m so unsure about who’s technically a “full-member poster” on our site. (BigRedElephant and EJ Rhodes both fall into this category.)
The rest of them met up on Freerepublic and Redstate. I knew one of them in my real life (I’m not saying which one), and we agreed on a lot of things. He invited me aboard, and I was happy to come.
As far as I know, we’ve all changed our pseudonyms and started fresh. I used to post occasionally as DEGOP and as Moose, for example. Since I moved out of Delaware and didn’t want to in any way be associated with that horrible state anymore, I changed my screen name. I posted as Moose for a short while, but it doesn’t sound right to me anymore, so I’ve stopped using it. Since I moved to a different state, I’ve been using GOP4Me. It’s a good, general name, and it won’t have to change when I move. (Of course, the state I moved to is even worse than Delaware, so that hardly helps me.)
GOP4Me
Well, my friend knows these people from Redstate and Freerepublic, and I know my friend. Freerepublic and Redstate are pretty good sites at troll-detection, so I don’t worry too much about it. Plus, DougJ couldn’t stay hidden this long. I’m not too worried about it.
Every site is young at some point, scs. Even Balloon Juice was 3 months old, 3 months after it started. Give us time, we’re still growing and attracting a conservative audience. Then I’m hoping we’ll fan out more to sites like this, and wage war on the lefties.
scs
Well GOP4ME. Sounds great. Good that a bunch of like-minded people such as yourselves got together and started a blog. However, just as a word of caution, you have to be careful with these ‘group’ blogs. For instance, you never know if someone you invite to be a writer is actually for real. There could be a chance that someone you met online and chatted with could be a spoofer, especially since you’ve only had the site for three months. Of course, I know that wouldn’t be you, as you seem so genuine now. It’s just a word of caution.
On the other hand, if one is starting a site, the more spoofing in the comments the better, because aren’t sites picking up ad dollars based on the number of traffic and comments they get? There are so many new or even long-running sites I link to, that only usually have 1 to 5 comments per thread, and yours 2 1/2 month old site already has about up to a hundred! Wow. Good work. You know, if DougJ DID write a computer program to generate comments like he said, you might as well hire him for your site, as it can only help get the ad dollars!
Krista
He’s going to wind up teasing us by not posting anything, isn’t he? :)
GOP4Me
Yeah, that’s true. I’m very worried about it, actually. With the newer people, it’s hard to be sure. We’ve been talking about some kind of screening process, but DougJ seems obsessive and crazy enough that he might get through. Which is why I really, really, REALLY want to sue him and get an injunction against him. If he ruins our site, he’ll be costing us money as well as damaging our reputations.
We didn’t start out with any ads, and we’re not doing this exclusively for the money. (I don’t see how I could get much, anyway, since I’m not posting much over there anymore; by all rights, Leonidas and Lysistrata should get the lion’s share this month, anyway.) I haven’t joined this as a business venture, although of course it WOULD be nice to make some money on it. That being said, a spoofer like DougJ with automatically-generating comments would be very bad for a young site like us. It would make us look bad, and it would destroy us. Who’d want to comment alongside a bunch of computer-generated parodies? That’s another reason why I want to sue DougJ. He threatens everything I’m trying to accomplish here.
Pb
You can’t “start taking the Internet back”, because that would imply that you had it in the first place. But watch out for the kooks, they’re everywhere! :)
GOP4Me
Well, DARPANET was a military program back in the 1970s, after all.
Thanks for the advice about kooks, though, kook.
Krista
Funny, I thought it was the porn producers that were overrunning the internet. If you manage to take back the internet from them, James Dobson will arrange for you to have an oceanview room when you get to Heaven.
scs
Yes Pb, I’ve noticed your comments over at Scrutator as well. That’s great that our old friend at Balloon Juice branches out and posts over there. I’ve noticed that your comments often follow or precede the comments of GOP4ME over there. Perhaps you are aquainted with our new friend GOP4ME? I’m really glad GOP4ME took this opportunity to explain to me what was going on. I have to say, I was suspicious of him before, but after all that, I have no suspicion whatsoever anymore! I am convinced. GOP4ME -I am a fan now, and I will start reading your blog from now on. How did I EVER think you were DougJ? It must have been temporary insanity. And I’m being honest here, you know that, right?
GOP4Me
Same people wearing different hats, as far as I’m concerned. Driving them off the Internet is part of the same goal. This place needs to be cleaned up, pronto.
GOP4Me
Well, to be honest with you, you sound sort of sarcastic. It doesn’t matter to me whether you are or not, though, I know I’m real and your opinion of my reality doesn’t matter. I like you and respect you and if that’s not reciprocated it doesn’t matter much to me. You’re very welcome over at Scrutator anytime, though. We need you to counterbalance people like Pb and Davebo and Paddy and pee-pee. I’d really like Darrell and Stormy to come over and post, I’m not sure that they’ve ever done so. Defense Guy came over for a little while, but then pee-pee drove him off. It angered me immensely.
scs
All I can say is DougJ works in mysterious ways.
Krista
By whom, though? That’s the sticky wicket you always wind up getting — who determines what’s acceptable? And let’s not forget that the Internet is an international beastie…who would set the rules? It’s impossible.
GOP4Me
.
He’s not God, you know.
GOP4Me
I can’t define obscenity, but I know it when I see it. If a majority of the public think something else is obscene, they should rule. It should always be decided by the majority. This is a democracy. I don’t know how things work up in Canada, but America is a democracy, and a majority rules a democracy. The community should get to decided what’s obscene and what isn’t, not some crazy pervert who thinks that his deviant fetishes are something the rest of us should have to tolerate just because HE likes them.
scs
You know, I just had a terrible thought. Just for fun, let’s assume GOP is our friend DougJ. Now that I went and looked at his page, he now has my IP address. If he really is this mad computer science evil genius, with my IP addy, he then has all kinds of access to crack my computer now. Oh the humanity! Anyway, if he is DougJ, I’m glad he is channeling a little of his creative energy to his own blog, and by default spending a little less time on others.
But I am just kidding, gop. I am convinced by you that you’re not, of course. Just a fun thought.
Krista
A majority of whom? Internet users? Citizens worldwide? Do we do a worldwide referendum? A special United Nations sub-committee? A bit expensive, no?
Sorry, hon – if you want to get rid of obscenity on your computer, then activate your content filter.
scs
On another note, that reminds me -time to check and see if my anti-virus software is updated. Got to do that from time to time!
scs
Why does the underline just show up like that? Damn. Must not accidentally hit button.
The Other Steve
Nope. Try again. I’ll give you a hint, it’s a mans name that you frequently agree with. It’s kind of funny. Tom Maguire is such a tool, he just has no clue that I’ve been spoofing him… it’s awesome. :-)
The Other Steve
The majority thinks your posts are obscene.
scs
Hmmm. On here? I don’t really agree with any man on here. Not a very helpful clue. Maybe some of the non-lefties – John Cole, maybe Darrell? Haven’t seen their names over there. It better not be Steve – have seen that name over there a lot. I don’t always agree with Steve because he’s a leftie; however I respect the way he says it. I will keep an eye on it.
Tim F.
America is a Republic, not a democracy.
Of course with all of the Communists running around you’d think that we were a Socialist state. How does one qualify for Communist status anyhow? Does Greg Djerjian count? He’s been awfully critical of the president lately and everybody knows that criticizing the president makes you liberal and liberalism is communism. So you guys need to step up your efforts to drive Communists like Djerjian off the net, posthaste. John Dilulio must be a Communist convert.
Here’s a good question. John Cole has gone positively apeshit against the GOP on occasion. Communist? By GOP4ME rules there should be no question. Even the clip-art logo at the top right looks vaguely Modern realist.
If irritating blog commenters out of existence doesn’t do the trick, maybe you’ll need more direct forms of action. Communism is a mortal threat to the republic after all, and John Birchers won’t think much of you if the only thing you do for the Cause is bloviate anonymously on the internet. I’d recommend logging IP addresses and reporting them to DHS – who knows what sort of threat to the Republic these fifth-columnists might be cooking up. And really, nothing says anti-communism like reporting dissenters to the authorities.
Just some thoughts to help you with the Cause.
GOP4Me
If you want, email me at [email protected]. We can discuss it further in private. I’m pretty sure no computer program exists that’ll let DougJ fake emails. If you’re worried about me using your email address to get to you, set up a fake email address that you only use for blogs. That’s what I did (why do you think I titled it “[email protected]?” Does that sound like an email address someone would use at the office?)
Otherwise, there’s no need to keep insinuating things. I’ve already told you the truth, and that’s that. You say you trust me, then you say you’re upgrading your software. I don’t care if you upgrade your software or not, common sense alone should tell you to do that.
This irks me, though. DougJ’s got us wasting time fighting with each other. It serves no purpose, and it lets him and his minions on this website get away with murder.
A majority of Americans. We invented the Internet, it’s ours, and we graciously consent to let the rest of you use it. If Canada wants to post hideous deviancy on Canadian websites, let Canada pay for its own Internet.
I’m not worried about me, I’m worried about other peoples’ children. What about those who don’t know about or activate their filters? What about perverts who figure out ways around them? You can’t stop those problems on your own, Krista. You need laws to help with that kind of thing.
Doubtful, since I haven’t used any profanity or denigrated women, or used any obscene words or images. But thanks for sharing, OS.
scs
Wow, GOP. You are quick! How did you know Krista was from Canada?
scs
Yes but even fake emails show the same IP addy, right? Not that if you were DougJ, you don’t already have it I’m sure.
GOP4Me
You say potato, I say potato. A Republic is a democracy run by the wisest and the best. This country hasn’t done that in a while, so if we want to experience pure democracy we should have one. This court-edict society is nothing like our Founders had in mind, and it’s not a democratic process. It’s rule by the worst elements of society, the Clinton appointees and the kooks and their left-wing buddies in the ACLU and the Hippie/deviant pervert/drug addict circles.
Not everyone who criticizes the President is a Communist. Some people are just duped. Some people are rubes. Some people are criticizing him for not acting quickly enough against the rot infesting this country. Those people are not Communists. They’re not perfect, but they’re not Communists. I myself have criticized him for underestimating the pernicious impact of liberal thought in America, particularly in the American media. I know I’m no Communist, so one has to look at motive as well as at the fact that one is criticizing him.
.
He definitely shows signs of Trotskyism from time to time, but I have hope for his eventual redemption. Part of his problem is probably that a lot of his page views come from left-wing kooks, so he feels the need to pander to those people and get his ad revenue up. It’s not Communistic, but more like Capitalism in a marriage of convenience with Communism. I have faith that once we’ve driven those people out of here, he’ll see the light and return to the fold. (Ordinarily, I wouldn’t speak this directly ill of him on his own website. I think it’s very rude. But unfortunately, you asked, and I feel compelled to give an answer even though I think it’s bad form to be so critical where one is a guest. My apologies to John Cole if he takes offense at my opinion.)
We’re working on it. Someday, the anti-sedition act will be a reality. Then DHS will take note of such things. For now, I trust in their ability to sift through mountains of evidence and determine a true threat to American democracy from some random kook posting inanities into the void. I’m just trying to do my part to squelch such people in the bud, before they develop adherents and evolve into threats the DHS has to take note of.
Some of them were helpful, albeit proferred sarcastically. Thanks.
capelza
Jesus, scs and GOP4me…get a room already…this public foreplay is making me gag.
scs
I’m a feared to go into the lion’s den. Shark’s den in this case. Will you all send help if I don’t return?
GOP4Me
Because I’ve been lurking here for quite some time (over a year, now), and posting here actively for about 2 1/2 months. Go back through the old threads and check.
I have no idea. I’m a bit of a luddite when it comes to the working of these computer-thinking-machine thingies.
capelza
no….
GOP4Me
I’m married, you know. I’m not flirting with anyone.
It’s okay if you don’t, I have to go to lunch so I won’t be able to respond for a while anyway.
scs
Well thanks for the invite GOP. I will make a note of your email addy. And one day, when I’m feeling lucky, I might email you and we can further explore all the dimensions of the omnipotent DougJ and our mutual love of rightie politics. I’m sure we’ll have lots to say about it. Have fun a lunch!
ppGaz
I don’t know why nobody pays attention around here. GOP4 is not DougJ. I know this for a fact. GOP4 is basically a Kramer-like character who writes well and honestly believes the Darrell-on-crack stuff that he posts. The fact that he does it with a sense of humor makes him untypical in the righty world, because most of them take themselves way too seriously. He has that in common with DougJ, but I assure you, he is not DougJ.
scs probably is. Or could be an invention of John and Tim to have a little fun at our expense. I myself could be DougJ, but probably am not, at least most of the time. Just because somebody else writes my part now and then doesn’t mean that he’s me, or I him.
For example, if I post as Dick Cheney, does that make me Dick Cheney? It doesn’t really mean dick, does it?
capelza
The last few days here feel like an extended version of the scene in The Princess Bride where Vizzini and Westley.
RonB
Yeah, because we all know how ruthless, hypermotivated and power drunk most hippies and druggies are…
RonB
No need to. I have seen him carrying a copy of Bias. He’s in the loop.
tBone
And you know this for a fact because YOU, sir, are in fact GOP4Me. Or DougJ is both you and GOP4Me. Or (and I think this is the most likely explanation), everyone here and at scrutator – and possibly on the entire Internet – is just a figment of DougJ’s imagination.
(Seriously, I wouldn’t be surprised at all to discover that scrutator is a wholly-owned subsidiary of DougJ Inc. That site is either a singular achievement in the field of political blog spoof-dom, or the tragic result of a Freeper orgy gone horribly, horribly wrong.)
GOP4Me
Thanks, scs. I hope your lunch went well too.
I don’t know whether to say thank you or start screaming at you, pee-pee. I guess maybe a little bit of both is in order here, but I’ve just had a big lunch and I’m feeling a bit sluggish about the whole thing.
capelza
It’s funny…the lefties get in trouble because of their sexist insults…the righties all seemed focused on kiddie bathroom words…poop, crapelza, pee-pee. What is the psychology working here. Lefties think about sex and righties think about excrement? What’s next..doodoohead?
GOP4Me
Billary was a former Hippie, you know. Spout whatever other nonsensical defenses you will about the Clintons, I think you’d be hard-pressed to deny their ambition.
That’s exactly the kind of paranoia that DougJ has set out to inspire. He’s evidently succeeded quite well with you. I’d almost feel sympathy if I hadn’t read the next paragraph you wrote…
So either we’re spoofers, or we’re sexual deviants? That’s a horrible thing to say. I’d demand an apology, but prior experience tells me never to expect one from the moonbat side of the political aisle.
ppGaz
Nope. I am not him, and DougJ is not him. DougJ is many things, but GOP4 is not one of them.
As for scrutator, DougJ is not the creator of it. DougJ posts all over the place, and probably there too. In fact I saw his name on a post there yesterday. But he does not run the site. The site is run by an independent blogopreneur.
tBone
ppGaz, I thought you said this guy had a sense of humor.
GOP4Me
Pee-pee is just a way of spelling out the letters of his name. If he were “bb”, he’d be known as “bee-bee.” “GAZ” is a typo, which should be spelled “gas.”
There’s nothing scatological about it, it’s just the way he’s chosen to name himself. I’ve chosen to name myself “GOP4Me”, so I fully expect deviant leftists to call me “GooP” or “Go pee for me” or imply that I’m a homosexual. Which happnes nearly every time I post around here, I should add.
ppGaz
Capelza, you can divine my email address from the first text on my photosite (see my url). Send me an email, I have some information for you.
GOP4Me
For once, you’re right, pee-pee.
Well, yeah, I try to joke around with you green-cheese-orbed-dwelling moonbat space-rodent Martian varmint insect-echolocators as much as possible. However, there are lines that can be crossed. The word “orgy” really got to me. I can tell you weren’t serious, but it bothers me.
Why couldn’t you say something less offensive, in the form of a kenning? I’m big on kennings. For example, “moon-bat”, and “space-cadet”. I have a better sense of humor if something is said in the form of a kenning. I also liked pee-pee’s use of the word “blogopreneur.” That’s a nice word, I expect it’ll be quite common in parlance 40 years from now.
ppGaz
Again with the reading comprehension skills!
“ppGaz” is made up of two abbreviations, one mine, and one a state in the United States.
It’s not a play on words or an invitation for smartass commentary. It’s an intelligent handle.
ppGaz
Again with the reading comprehension skills!
“ppGaz” is made up of two abbreviations, one my initials, and one a state in the United States.
It’s not a play on words or an invitation for smartass commentary. It’s an intelligent handle.
Perry Como
This is freakin’ hilarious. It’s like Where’s Waldo?, with DougJ in a red and white striped outfit. Oh, I forgot, I’m DougJ too. So it’s actually me in a red and white striped outfit. And I hate stripes!
ppGaz
Has anybody seen the morning line on DougJ’s approval rating?
GOP4Me
You can say THAT again, apparently.
I was unaware that pee-pee was an American state.
ppGaz
Funny, GOP4. AZ is a state abbreviation, but I imagine that your reform school didn’t teach you that.
tBone
So you would have thought it was funny it I had phrased it as “the tragic result of a Freeper clusterf*ck”? I’ll keep that in mind for next time.
GOP4Me
Sorry, Mr. Gas. I didn’t mean to insult Arizona. Just you.
GOP4Me
Well, it would’ve been better. At least “cluster-f-ck” is a sort of a kenning.
RonB
LMAO
GOP4Me
Why? An orgy is a morally offensive, deviant concept.
tBone
Only if you do it correctly.
GOP4Me
It’s an inherently offensive concept. How could you go about committing a sin incorrectly? Is birth control still a sin if you forget to use it or forget to think about using it? Is having an abortion a sin if you never have one performed?
Interestingly enough, if you read this, you’ll see that although orgies haven’t always referred to sexual deviancy, it has always referred to some form of pagan idolatry. So the word has always connoted sin, even though the nature of the sin has changed over time.
tBone
GOP, that whooshing sound is the joke flying right over your head.
RonB
I could listen to this all day whether you are serious or not, it’s great shit.
GOP4Me
I’m not even sure I WANT to know the joke, at this point.
tBone
BTW:
The first step is attending college and not being averse to copious amounts of alcohol . . . from there, the possibilities are endless.
Nope. YMMV.
GOP4Me
Thus are liberals made of decent Americans. Then during your brief periods of lucidity you face indoctrination at the hands of Communist professors. David Horowitz is quite correct on that score.
I don’t know what that acronym means. I’m sorry. (Or am I? Should I be?)
GOP4Me
I will pray for your soul.
tBone
Yeah. During a brief respite from my hedonistic, lucidity-killing college lifestyle, I can recall one professor giving me a C in a Human Relations course. That Commie bastard!
YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary. Or “Different strokes for different folks,” if you like that better.
RonB
Just keep the comedy coming and you can do whatever you want.
tBone
Not that I’m accusing you of stroking anyone (or a group of people, God forbid).
tBone
That made more sense before RonB’s post snuck in there . . . sorry.