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

Before Header

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

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

I would try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

These are not very smart people, and things got out of hand.

This has so much WTF written all over it that it is hard to comprehend.

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

Optimism opens the door to great things.

Stamping your little feets and demanding that they see how important you are? Not working anymore.

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

Someone should tell Republicans that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, or possibly the first.

If you are still in the gop, you are either an extremist yourself, or in bed with those who are.

If America since Jan 2025 hasn’t broken your heart, you haven’t loved her enough.

The snowflake in chief appeared visibly frustrated when questioned by a reporter about egg prices.

Balloon Juice, where there is always someone who will say you’re doing it wrong.

We need to vote them all out and restore sane Democratic government.

Fear or fury? The choice is ours.

I did not have this on my fuck 2025 bingo card.

The press swings at every pitch, we don’t have to.

This must be what justice looks like, not vengeful, just peaceful exuberance.

Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

Boeing: repeatedly making the case for high speed rail.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

Insiders who complain to politico: please report to the white house office of shut the fuck up.

Mobile Menu

  • 4 Directions VA 2025 Raffle
  • 2025 Activism
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / The Iran Dilemma

The Iran Dilemma

by John Cole|  September 1, 20069:16 am| 605 Comments

This post is in: Foreign Affairs

FacebookTweetEmail

A report from the IAEA:

The International Atomic Energy Agency told the U.N. Security Council its inspectors have found new traces of enriched uranium in Iran.

The discovery marked the third instance that highly enriched uranium was found at an Iranian facility, but the IAEA said the nuclear fingerprint on the new discovery does not match that found on earlier samples, which the agency had concluded came from contaminated equipment from Pakistan, The New York Times reported Friday.

The 6-page IAEA report did not identify where the uranium might have originated or whether it was connected to a secret nuclear program in Iran. The country has insisted that its nuclear program is aimed only at producing energy, a task that would use uranium enriched at much lower levels than that found by the IAEA inspectors.

Not being a nuclear scientist (nor a rocket scientist, for that matter), I can’t tell you what that means, exactly. Perhaps Tim F. can shed some light in the comments.

I can tell you, however, that no matter what Iran says they are doing, and no matter what we want them to do, they are pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons. The questions is what can and what should the rest of the world do?

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « WPE
Next Post: RIP Steve Irwin »

Reader Interactions

605Comments

  1. 1.

    Krista

    September 1, 2006 at 9:33 am

    Well, I think we’ve seen how well pre-emptive wars work, so I probably wouldn’t suggest that. Who are Iran’s allies and trading partners? Where are they getting their money?

  2. 2.

    SomeCallMeTim

    September 1, 2006 at 9:37 am

    First things first: it should take a deep breath and grow up. If the Russians and Chinese aren’t sweating these things, we probably shouldn’t either. Yes, the world is worse if Iran gets nukes. But not a hell of a lot worse. I’m much more comfortable with Iran having a nuke than Pakistan, which is constantly teetering on the edge of becoming a failed state.

  3. 3.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 9:37 am

    I can tell you, however, that no matter what Iran says they are doing, and no matter what we want them to do, they are pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

    I think you may well be right in this case, but I’ve heard rhetoric like that before (and it was wrong), so I’m going to have to ask for some proof of that assertion first before we start treating it as a fact and basing decisions on it.

  4. 4.

    The Other Steve

    September 1, 2006 at 9:37 am

    A friend of mine brought up an interesting point.

    He observed that what it appears Iran wants is to be treated as an adult. i.e. be taken seriously.

    So as long as the US behaves as if we are too good for Iran, and tries to negotiate through intermediaries, Iran is going to continue right on down this path.

    Now that’s no guarantee that two party talks would succeed, it’s just an observation that pretending like Iran doesn’t exist and we don’t have to talk to them is a guarantee for failure.

    When you read much of the other foreign analysis of Iran, and keep in mind that this is the nation of Persia which was a powerful player in the world say 3,000 years ago. So there is a history there, and a lot of pride and such. So they’re pursuing this Nuclear agenda as a matter of national pride, and the Iraq lesson, that if the US claims you have nukes you better really have nukes to defend yourself with.

    Anyway, I’m sure someone will now come around to remind us all that Iran = Hitler.

  5. 5.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 9:45 am

    Well, I think we’ve seen how well pre-emptive wars work,

    Pre-emptive wars actually have a decent history. Without pre-emptive attacks in 1972 (or was it 1967?), Israel would almost certainly not have survived. And in Iraq, it wasn’t really a ‘pre-emptive’ attack, so much as it was a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War, in which Saddam had repeatedly violated the terms of surrender in which it . Violations of terms of surrender = resumption of hostilities. And even if you call it pre-emptive, I think to declare it a failure, as Krista has suggested, is ridiculous, as we toppled Saddam, a dangerous nutball with a track record of invading neighbors and using chem weapons. Given that, it’s pretty far out there to mock it with “I think we’ve all seen how well pre-emptive wars work”, as if she has any kind of valid point

    It bothers me how the left tries to dismiss ALL possibility of military action, when their only proposed alternative to military action is diplomacy, which has been tried repeatedly, and it’s clear to anyone with eyes, as John Cole has noted, that diplomacy has not worked and will not work, as Iran isn’t going to stop pursuing nuclear weapons willingly.

  6. 6.

    ET

    September 1, 2006 at 9:47 am

    I could make some snarky comment(s) but I’ll leave that to others.

    I don’t think that the U.S. has much in the way of credibility in the region, with regards to WMD, or with regards to Iran. Heck, the administration may not have much in the way of credibility with the American public. The boy who cried wolf and all that. Add the lack of competence to this lack of credibility, and I do know that the U.S. is going to have that much of a harder time affecting a positive outcome in a situation where that was going to be very difficult when people think well of the U.S. and we have competent leadership.

    I will say that not engaging and not talking is not a viable option. Sticking their heads in the sand or pretending that their way is the right way and if people don’t agree with them they will just take their toys and go home, is so counterproductive as to be insane.

  7. 7.

    The Other Steve

    September 1, 2006 at 9:47 am

    Well, I think we’ve seen how well pre-emptive wars work, so I probably wouldn’t suggest that. Who are Iran’s allies and trading partners? Where are they getting their money?

    Iraq was a preventative war, not pre-emptive.

    The only way a preventative war can work is if you follow the Third Punic War model. It involves sacking the city, taking all the treasure, salting the earth and killing or enslaving every man, woman and child in the land.

    However, it should be noted that not even Hitler and Stalin were willing to go that far.

  8. 8.

    Tim F.

    September 1, 2006 at 9:49 am

    As I understand it, until now the evidence has suggested that Iran’s ability to enrich uranium is sufficient to supply reactors but well short of the level of isotope purity needed for a weapon. If new evidence suggests that they have weapons-grade uranium, well, that clearly removes the doubt about about what they plan to do with it. It may be that intelligence estimates were correct and Iran simply bought the highly-enriched material from Pakistan, in which case they could build a bomb whenever they want. And, importantly, it would mean that bombing sites like Natanz would do no good whatsoever.

    We should also keep in mind the simplest explanation, that the traces really did come from contaminated equipment shipped from Pakistan. Whether one keeps that reasonable doubt in mind will be a good test of whether one has a vested interest in Iran alarmism.

  9. 9.

    Pixie

    September 1, 2006 at 9:49 am

    ” I can tell you, however, that no matter what Iran says they are doing, and no matter what we want them to do, they are pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons. The questions is what can and what should the rest of the world do?”

    I’m so glad you were able to clear this up John. Here I was thinking we’d actually need proof or something before rushing in and eliminating the Nukyoolar threat. Say for a moment that they were pursuing a nuclear weapon. My question is — who the hell cares? There’s only one nation who has used them thus far and who has a history of starting unprovoked wars and it ain’t Iran.

  10. 10.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 9:49 am

    Yes, the world is worse if Iran gets nukes. But not a hell of a lot worse

    Not only does the left dismiss and ridicule all possibility of military action, virtually all of the left tries to minimize the threat of nuclear armed mullahs. Iran is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, yet we hear stupid shit from the left like the world “wouldn’t be much worse” if the mullahs obtained nuclear weapons. Incredible. I hope the left’s reaction to Iran nearing the acquisition of nuclear weapons opens John Cole’s eyes, and opens a lot of other Americans’ eyes to the reality that the left absolutely cannot be taken serious on matters of national security.

  11. 11.

    Zifnab

    September 1, 2006 at 9:49 am

    He observed that what it appears Iran wants is to be treated as an adult. i.e. be taken seriously.

    So as long as the US behaves as if we are too good for Iran, and tries to negotiate through intermediaries, Iran is going to continue right on down this path.

    Now that’s no guarantee that two party talks would succeed, it’s just an observation that pretending like Iran doesn’t exist and we don’t have to talk to them is a guarantee for failure.

    A nice idea in theory, but possessing nuclear weapons in this day and age is like getting your driver’s license. Even if America were to have two-party talks and even if Iran wasn’t being led by a bullheaded set of Mullahs, the country would still inevitably demand nuclear weapons at some point in the future. Imagine if Iran had nukes back during the Iraq-Iran wars? How many lives do you think the Iranians imagine they could have saved? How much money and time? If they could just flash a nuclear stockpile at their opponents and wage a menacing finger, I imagine Saddam might not have spent years attempting an invasion.

    Iran is past the tipping poing in-so-far as they gain far more by pursuing nukes than by not pursuing them. They have an educated population, good foreign relations with a number of other countries, and a slowly blossoming economy. Whatever America offers, Iran can find somewhere else. I don’t think two-party talks will do more than give Iran the opportunity to stick its tongue in America’s face.

    If you really, really, really, really don’t want Iran to develop nuclear weapons, I honestly think an airstrike is your only viable option.

  12. 12.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 9:51 am

    Say for a moment that they were pursuing a nuclear weapon. My question is—who the hell cares?

    This, from the self proclaimed ‘reality based’ community.

  13. 13.

    Zifnab

    September 1, 2006 at 9:51 am

    However, it should be noted that not even Hitler and Stalin were willing to go that far.

    Stalin’s “conquer your neighbors and set them up as sallelite buffer states” technique actually worked pretty well too.

  14. 14.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 9:53 am

    Whether one keeps that reasonable doubt in mind will be a good test of whether one has a vested interest in Iran alarmism.

    Tim, is it all just “alarmism” from ‘wingnut’s? Or is there good reason to be damn concerned?

  15. 15.

    The Other Steve

    September 1, 2006 at 9:53 am

    pre-emptive war: The enemy has built up and prepared to deploy some form of weapon or army ready to attack your borders. Instead, you initiate the attack on their army in attempt to wipe them out unprepared.

    preventative war: The enemy may be a threat in some indeterminate future. You take them out, just in case.

    preventative wars have a pretty spotty past, and are generally considered immoral. The most famous example would be the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which forced America’s hand into the War resulting in the complete annihilation of the Japanese military.

  16. 16.

    Zifnab

    September 1, 2006 at 9:53 am

    Not only does the left dismiss and ridicule all possibility of military action, virtually all of the left tries to minimize the threat of nuclear armed mullahs. Iran is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, yet we hear stupid shit from the left like the world “wouldn’t be much worse” if the mullahs obtained nuclear weapons.

    Stats please. From what I’ve seen, that title seems to sit firmly in the hands of Saudi Arabia. Perhaps we should be bombing them.

  17. 17.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 9:56 am

    From what I’ve seen, that title seems to sit firmly in the hands of Saudi Arabia.

    From “what you’ve seen” huh? What I’ve seen is the Saudi govt over the past 3 years cracking down on terrorists, which threaten Saudi leadership. Some Saudi princes payoff the extremists to keep them placated, but it’s not state sponsored terrorism like Iran.

  18. 18.

    Pixie

    September 1, 2006 at 9:59 am

    You forgot the other part Darrel — “There’s only one nation who has used them thus far and who has a history of starting unprovoked wars and it ain’t Iran.”

    So if we’re going to base our present actions on past occurrances, it would stand to reason that we are the ones who are trigger happy when it comes to bomb dropping, not the “crazy Mullahs”. I dont tend to give in as easily to fear mongering as those on “the right” (since you want to label) are, but given the fact that the US is bent on Saber rattling, it might actually be pushing Iran in the direction of building a nuke for deterence, rather than the prospect of bombing the US or Isreal. And you say we don’t care about National security?

  19. 19.

    The Other Steve

    September 1, 2006 at 9:59 am

    Stalin’s “conquer your neighbors and set them up as sallelite buffer states” technique actually worked pretty well too.

    For about 50 years, and then all hell fell apart.

    I don’t think you could argue it was a good long term strategy. It diverted a lot of resources towards maintaining the occupation, while at the same time not gaining the Soviets much in terms of wealth. The result was a collapse of the whole system of government and economy in 50 years.

    When you consider, the real purpose behind the occupation of the eastern bloc was to prevent another invasion into Russia by Western European forces. (having suffered two in the past 150 years… namely Napolean in 1812 and Hitler in 1941.

    Was there not a more efficient and effective way of preventing another invasion?

  20. 20.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 10:01 am

    Pixie Says:

    You forgot the other part Darrel—“There’s only one nation who has used them thus far and who has a history of starting unprovoked wars and it ain’t Iran.”

    Ah yes, America = the real terrorists.

  21. 21.

    Pixie

    September 1, 2006 at 10:02 am

    “Ah yes, America = the real terrorists.”

    Let history speak for itself.

  22. 22.

    John S.

    September 1, 2006 at 10:06 am

    John-

    How do you go from this:

    Not being a nuclear scientist (nor a rocket scientist, for that matter), I can’t tell you what that means, exactly.

    To this:

    I can tell you, however, that no matter what Iran says they are doing, and no matter what we want them to do, they are pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

    So you don’t have a clue what their activity means, but you’re 100% positive it means they are making weapons? Seriously man, that is the kind of illogic that got us into Iraq in the first place. I think your initial instinct to defer to Tim was a good one:

    As I understand it, until now the evidence has suggested that Iran’s ability to enrich uranium is sufficient to supply reactors but well short of the level of isotope purity needed for a weapon. If new evidence suggests that they have weapons-grade uranium, well, that clearly removes the doubt about about what they plan to do with it.

    That’s a big fucking “if”. Let’s all wait to see what it turns into before ringing the alarm again, shall we?

  23. 23.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 10:10 am

    Let’s all wait to see what it turns into before ringing the alarm again, shall we?

    I think with the Iranian mullah’s track record of sponsoring terrorism, calling to “wipe Israel off the map”, and praise for global jihad and martyrdom.. with that track record, I think it’s smart to give them every benefit of the doubt, right lefties?

  24. 24.

    John S.

    September 1, 2006 at 10:11 am

    Did I hear something?

    Must be the wind again…

  25. 25.

    Andrew

    September 1, 2006 at 10:13 am

    Given the choice, I’d rather Iran have nukes than, say, Pakistan.

    Pakistan is a few assasinations away from nuclear war over Kashmir or al Qaeda getting a bomb.

    Iran knows that nukes are the only possible deterrent against America, and it would be illogical not to develop them. It would also be illogical to use them against Israel, crazy Presidents aside, because 70 million Persians don’t want to die.

  26. 26.

    Larv

    September 1, 2006 at 10:19 am

    Even if Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, that would only be relevant to the nuclear question if it were at all plausible that they might give a nuke to terrorists. I can’t see that it is, as doing so would be suicidal. The mullahs may be bastards, but I have seen no evidence that they’re irrational bastards. Their support of Hezbollah is strategic, as it enhances their status in the region. Giving Hezbollah a nuke would not gain them anything, it’d just bring the wrath of the rest of the world down on them. I’m really not clear on why anyone thinks this is a grave risk. It’s much more likely that Iran is pursuing nukes for the same reason virtually every other nuclear power has – for their deterrent ability. Nuclear proliferation is bad, and all feasible steps should be taken to reduce it, but talk of military action against Iran seems rather silly at this point.

  27. 27.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 10:19 am

    Andrew Says:

    Given the choice, I’d rather Iran have nukes than, say, Pakistan.

    So since Pakistan has nukes, it’s not such a big deal that Iran obtain them too? Please correct me if that’s not what you’re suggesting. Pakistan has problems, but their President is not calling to “wipe Israel off the map”, while openly attempting to hasten the appearance of the next Islamic messiah (12th iman) like the nutjobs in Iran.

  28. 28.

    Lovelesbians

    September 1, 2006 at 10:23 am

    Listen, Iran has said it will enrich uranium for power only. That appears to be BS as they have no need to do that. Do I know this for a fact, no, but I think it is fairly obvious, not from Bushco, but from Iran itself, that they want nuclear abilities and want to play with China, N. Korea, Russia and the USA. They have also called for the destruction of Isreal and, more importantly, the USA. In addition, Iran is quickly moving to the right and becoming a more radical, conservative Muslim state. We all know what radical, conservative Muslims stand for. Let’s not forget the constant “Death to America” chants. So the real question is what the hell do we do?

    Right wingnuts want to nuke the entire country, the left wants to stay put and take a ‘let’s see’ approach. Neither is going to be all that effective. What we need is a SOLUTION from the democrats that can be put out there. So what is the solution, or are the dems just going to whine about it. If they are, the elections are a lost cause, hell, I could win an election against a group of whiny intelects with no answers. Are sanctions going to work? They did in Iraq, but that was a much poorer country than Iran. I am not sure sanctions will work. So, what should we do?

  29. 29.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 10:23 am

    if it were at all plausible that they might give a nuke to terrorists. I can’t see that it is, as doing so would be suicidal.

    I take it then that you are unaware that the Iranian Prez has stated that the way to hasten the appearance of that Islamic messiah is through worldwide jihad and martyrdom. The country is run by dangerous terrorist supporting islamic extremists.

  30. 30.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 10:25 am

    Right wingnuts want to nuke the entire country

    Do you leftists actually believe all these crap talking points that you recite?

  31. 31.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 10:26 am

    Iranian mullahs: “No, it wasn’t us who gave the nuclear weapons to those terrorists who took out Chicago. That was somebody else.. probably N. Korea”

  32. 32.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 10:29 am

    The questions is what can and what should the rest of the world do?

    Preemptive nuclear strikes, followed by widespread war.

    Then, negotiate.

    The Darrell Doctrine. Oh wait, has Darrell actually proposed a doctrine? Or stated an arguable position? Or has he just turned in number 5,436 in his endless stream of harangues and threadfucks?

    Seriously, how can you pose a question like this and then turn the place over to Darrell? Unless page views are the only goal, I mean?

    Spare me the free speech bathos, or the nasty ad hominems aimed at me. The question deserves a real answer. How can you put up a thread like this and then invite a frigging hyena?

  33. 33.

    The Other Steve

    September 1, 2006 at 10:30 am

    To be fair, Iran is probably the greatest state sponsor of terrorism.

    But Saudi Arabia is the greatest state sponsor of religious extremism. Which is a much greater problem and has resulted in much more terrorism than Iran’s sponsorship.

  34. 34.

    Lovelesbians

    September 1, 2006 at 10:31 am

    Darrell, I certainly do believe that there are many on the right that are all for nuking Iran. I think the term that has been used is “limited nuclear strike.” If I had not heard it as a right wing talking point, did I just make up the idea all by myself? You are pretty smart for sitting here telling us we are all wrong, but WHAT ARE YOUR SOLUTIONS? Do we have the military to take over a country like Iran? DO the genrals think so? Do you want to do that?

  35. 35.

    Larv

    September 1, 2006 at 10:34 am

    So Darrell, what exactly have the mullahs actually done about wiping Israel off the map? Actions speak louder than words. Israel is unpopular in the region, and demagoguery against them is an easy way to score political points. Ditto with arming Hezbollah. But if the Iranians were serious about taking out Israel, they’d be building up their military either to invade Israel or to defend against the inevitable invasion of Iran upon the use of a nuke against Israel. They aren’t.

  36. 36.

    Doctor Gonzo

    September 1, 2006 at 10:42 am

    Darrell, let’s pretend that Iran created a nuclear bomb, maybe as powerful as the one dropped on Nagasaki (they certainly aren’t making hydrogen bombs). And let’s say that Iran, for some strange reason, detonated it in Israel.

    Would that destroy Israel, wipe it off the face of the map? No.

    Would that destroy Iran, wipe it off the face of the map? Yes, because just about every other country in the world would rightly attack Iran for doing so.

    So, exactly, what would Iran have to gain by doing this?

    Fear-mongers like to believe that Ahmadinejad and other leaders are completely insane and would literally kill themselves to prove a point. I’m sorry, but I don’t think that these people are truly that stupid. They talk a lot, yes, but it would make zero sense for Iran to try to destroy Israel, because they couldn’t, and all it would do is guarantee Iran’s destruction.

  37. 37.

    The Other Steve

    September 1, 2006 at 10:43 am

    Listen, Iran has said it will enrich uranium for power only. That appears to be BS as they have no need to do that. Do I know this for a fact, no, but I think it is fairly obvious, not from Bushco, but from Iran itself, that they want nuclear abilities and want to play with China, N. Korea, Russia and the USA.

    Aye, it’s a matter of national pride. They want to be part of the big boys club.

    They have also called for the destruction of Isreal and, more importantly, the USA.

    Technically, I believe they have called for Regime Change. Which is all empty rhetoric, much like the Regime Change stuff that comes from our President.

    In addition, Iran is quickly moving to the right and becoming a more radical, conservative Muslim state.

    That depends. Do you also consider that the United States is quickly moving to the right and becoming a more radical, conservative Christian state?

    Honestly, from the news reports I see out of Iran, I’m not convinced that the people are all that radicalized. Western culture has been making a signifigant influence into their lives, and most of Iran just wants to be left alone. This Ahmajinejad is frankly scaring people back home.

    And it’s not clear just how much power he has as a “dictator”, considering former President Khatami is coming here to the states to speak with a variety of people.

    So the real question is what the hell do we do?

    Well that depends. What do you want to do?

    Hope for the best, or believe the worst?

    Right wingnuts want to nuke the entire country, the left wants to stay put and take a ‘let’s see’ approach.

    Last I checked, ‘let’s see’ doesn’t cost us anything.

    Neither is going to be all that effective.

    Effective at what?

    What we need is a SOLUTION from the democrats that can be put out there.

    Before we have a solution, don’t we need a firm understanding of what is the problem?

    Otherwise you’re just putting the cart before the horse. The right’s solution of nuking Iran from orbit, guarantees that we will have a problem. But is our goal to create a solution, or to create a problem?

    So what is the solution, or are the dems just going to whine about it. If they are, the elections are a lost cause, hell, I could win an election against a group of whiny intelects with no answers.

    You know what. Quit your fucking whining. You are starting to annoy me.

    Are sanctions going to work? They did in Iraq, but that was a much poorer country than Iran. I am not sure sanctions will work. So, what should we do?

    Depends on what the goal of the sanctions are.

    Frankly, I prefer the Mutual Assured Destruction threat to handle Nuclear Proliferation.

    You detonate a nuke, we nuke you back to the stone age.

    Then we just need to hope that the RussiansIranians love their children too.

  38. 38.

    Jon H

    September 1, 2006 at 10:45 am

    Darrell writes: “Pakistan has problems, but their President is not calling to “wipe Israel off the map”,”

    Not Pakistan’s president, but everyone who works for him thinks like that.

    And if you don’t think it’s a problem as long as the Musharraf is in charge, you’re forgetting how much damage his highly honored underling AQ Khan did. Without him, we probably wouldn’t have to worry about Iran getting nukes.

    And then there are the Al Qaeda and Taliban supporters in his regime.

    I suppose the best-worst-case scenario would be if Iran and Pakistan got into a sectarian Shiite-vs-Sunni nuclear exchange.

  39. 39.

    The Other Steve

    September 1, 2006 at 10:48 am

    So, exactly, what would Iran have to gain by doing this?

    The right to sit near Odin in Valhalla, I think.

  40. 40.

    Punchy

    September 1, 2006 at 10:49 am

    because 70 million Persians don’t want to die.

    The people, or the rugs?

  41. 41.

    The Other Steve

    September 1, 2006 at 10:50 am

    The people, or the rugs?

    cats, my friend.

    cats on a plane!

  42. 42.

    Lovelesbians

    September 1, 2006 at 10:52 am

    o
    what is the solution, or are the dems just going to whine about it. If they are, the elections are a lost cause, hell, I could win an election against a group of whiny intelects with no answers.

    You know what. Quit your fucking whining.

    The right will frame the deabte, they already have, that something needs to be done. Sheeple witll belive it, so we need a solution to the problem of Iran getting nukes. We can talk about when and whether it will happen, but out population believes they will get at some point and dems need to address this fear to win an election or, at hte least, prevent the support of yet another senseless war.

  43. 43.

    Kirk Spencer

    September 1, 2006 at 10:52 am

    I’ve done this before, but let’s walk the sequence again.

    Question the first:
    If Iran has nuclear bombs, what will they do with them?
    [Projected answer: use them against Israel and the US.]

    Based on this [projected] answer, question the second is:
    What happens next?

    And the subsequent question is:
    Is it reasonable to believe that the Iranian leadership knows of, understands, and at least nominally agrees with the answer to question two?

    Now assuming the projected answer to the first, and that the answer to the second is a variation on “Delenda est Iran”, and the answer to the third question is “yes”…

    Are the leaders of the nation of Iran rational? That is, are self- and national- interest of more (if yes) or less (if no) importance than principle carried out to the point of suicide?

    This is the critical point. If the leaders of Iran are irrational – willing to commit suicide while Iran is turned into the world’s largest nightlight – then our options are significantly constrained: we must destroy Iran as it exists at this time. If on the other hand the leaders of Iran are rational then the nuclear boogeyman is a nuisance but not worth our utter and comprehensive fear and rage.

    Note this causal chain works for a lot of nations and a lot of decision options.
    1 – Assume A, what action is anticipated?
    2 – What are B aka the consequences of A?
    3 – Are the actors responsible for A aware of B?
    3a – if yes, do we believe the consequences are acceptable to them?
    4 (chain)
    4a) if no, the objective becomes making them aware of B
    4b) if 3a is YES, we must act based on the answer to A.
    4c) if 3a is NO, then why are we wasting time, energy, and resources on acting as though it’s YES?

  44. 44.

    The Other Steve

    September 1, 2006 at 10:56 am

    The right will frame the deabte, they already have, that something needs to be done. Sheeple witll belive it, so we need a solution to the problem of Iran getting nukes.

    I must not fear.
    Fear is the mind-killer.
    Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
    I will face my fear.
    I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
    And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
    Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
    Only I will remain.

  45. 45.

    The Other Steve

    September 1, 2006 at 10:57 am

    What Kirk Spencer said.

  46. 46.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 11:01 am

    Before we have a solution, don’t we need a firm understanding of what is the problem?

    Cart before horse? Grand idea.

    What do you think of this?

    The problem of terrorism is not Disneyland or the Bill of Rights or MTV. The problem is America’s interventionist foreign policy, which creates enemies at every turn. The consequences will be the same for liberal intervention as for neoconservative intervention.

    The Bush administration was supposed to return “the adults” to run U.S. foreign policy. Alas, the result has been catastrophic. Instead of a policy of mature restraint, the Bush team has leavened arrogance with ignorance and incompetence. But the principal problem is principle: using war and the threat of war to advance peripheral and sometimes frivolous objectives, usually objectives which cannot be achieved through coercion. Liberals must do more than rename neoconservative policies. They must develop a foreign policy that advocates doing less as well as doing it better.

    IOW, start by being realistic about the problem. The problem is not that they “hate us for our freedom,” a dumbass meme packaged specifically for dumbasses.

    The problem is that they hate us for our stupid foreign policy. So, fix that.

    The blurb is from this guy:

    Doug Bandow is a Washington-based political writer and policy analyst and a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. He served as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and as a senior policy analyst in the 1980 Reagan for President campaign.

  47. 47.

    fester

    September 1, 2006 at 11:01 am

    As I have been hitting repeatedly upon in various forums, this fear of end times and the death of the American way of life has been a routine prophecy within the American political scene anytime it looks like a non-NATO power is going to get nuclear weapons….

    1949 — crazy, paranoid Communist Stalin gets the Bomb — we survived
    1964 crazy, paranoid, xenophobic Mao and China get the bomb, and we survived
    1998 India and Pakistan demonstrate weaponization of their previous latent capabilities and we have survived so far we have survived although there are legitimate and significant worries about Pakistani control over their nukes

    1990ish North Korea establishes the capability of building a minimal deterrent and by 2004 they have a pipeline cranking bombs out for a reasonable deterrent and we have survived.

    2012-2022 Iran might have a nuclear deterrent, and we’ll survive that too.

    Proliferation is against our interest, but it is not a vital national interets as long as the following rules are made clear:

    1) The builder is responsible for the entire life of a nuclear weapon (passing a bomb off to a 3rd party for detonation against Americans does not allow the first party to escape retaliation)
    2) The US, and other major nuclear powers have the capability of conducting isotopic analysis and determining which reactor produced the weapon and thus establishing ownership of the weapon.
    3) The US, UK, France, Russia and China are willing to extend their technical assistance to upgrade command and control abilities as well as other confidence building measures to the smaller nuclear powers to reduce the risk of accidental release.

  48. 48.

    Lovelesbians

    September 1, 2006 at 11:03 am

    Steve, are you kidding? All the right does is play the fear card and then tell us not to be afraid of all the crap they just told us we should be afraid of. I am beginning to think that you are just a schmuck who likes to stir the stew with no real commentray or legit analysis. Must be a republican POS

  49. 49.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 11:06 am

    I am beginning to think that you are just a schmuck who likes to stir the stew with no real commentray or legit analysis.

    Are you accusing him of writing the Darrell posts?

    Ow.

  50. 50.

    The Other Steve

    September 1, 2006 at 11:17 am

    Steve, are you kidding? All the right does is play the fear card and then tell us not to be afraid of all the crap they just told us we should be afraid of. I am beginning to think that you are just a schmuck who likes to stir the stew with no real commentray or legit analysis. Must be a republican POS

    What you are advocating is playing right into the Republican fear card. That is the implicit assumption that the Republicans are right, and if Democrats don’t have a plan for the Republicans being right, then democrats will look like schmucks.

    But past history has not shown a pattern of Republicans being right. In fact, just the opposite.

    So our best bet is not to do a direct assault on Republicans, but rather flank them. As you noted, they are prone to stupid tough talk, and then a sudden willingness to deflect when accused of stupid tough talk. So why bother accusing them of stupid tough talk? That’s what they want.

    But the reality is… Should we fear an attack from Cobra Commander? That’s what we have GI JOE for!

  51. 51.

    Davebo

    September 1, 2006 at 11:20 am

    Pakistan has problems, but their President is not calling to “wipe Israel off the map”, while openly attempting to hasten the appearance of the next Islamic messiah (12th iman) like the nutjobs in Iran.

    Uhh.. right. That would explain why Pakistan officially recognizes Israel as a country. Oh wait, they don’t.

    And when Mushareff broached the subject, suggesting that Pakistan should “consider” officially recognizing Israel as a country what happened? The six-party religious alliance Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA), already in a bitter row with the government over the issue of constitutional amendments, threatened that it would launch a countrywide movement to oust the government if it took even a step toward the recognition of Israel.

    Sorry Darrel, but if recognizing Israels right to exist as a country is your litmus test then you’ve just written off every American ally in the region except Israel.

  52. 52.

    The Other Steve

    September 1, 2006 at 11:23 am

    Cobra Commander Wants You

    But do not worry, my friends.

    GI JOE IS THERE!

  53. 53.

    srv

    September 1, 2006 at 11:30 am

    We should also keep in mind the simplest explanation, that the traces really did come from contaminated equipment shipped from Pakistan. Whether one keeps that reasonable doubt in mind will be a good test of whether one has a vested interest in Iran alarmism.

    Another option is that the CIA has operatives on the IAEA teams that are salting the evidence. Where is curveball now, BTW?

  54. 54.

    Kirk Spencer

    September 1, 2006 at 11:31 am

    Fester, I’m stealing your rules – the rules for an age of nuclear proliferation.

  55. 55.

    Yaco

    September 1, 2006 at 11:32 am

    Only the Bene Gesserit can save us now…

  56. 56.

    realbtl

    September 1, 2006 at 11:34 am

    This may – or may not if your belief/fear is strong enough – clear things up a bit. I worked for 18 years in Lawrence Livermore’s uranium/plutonium enrichment program. During enrichment youdon’t enrich the entire mass simutaneously; some % will be highly enriched and most not. You have to keep up the process until the average of the mass is highly enriched.

    In simple terms, this means that reactor grade U will have a tiny % of weapons grade U in it. We don’t have enough info to determine whether this batch was enriched for reactors or weapons.

  57. 57.

    Andrew

    September 1, 2006 at 11:40 am

    The problem is not Musharraf. The problem is a potential lack of Musharaf. If he dies (and there have been numerous assasination attempts), then it is likely that the current ruling structure will collapse and there is a not insignificant chance of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Kasmiri insurgents or al Qaeda-type terrorists, who are not rational state actors.

    Iran, crazy presidental quotes aside, is a rational state actor. It is rational for Iran to develop nuclear weapons as a military deterrent, and it is extremely rational to develop nuclear power for internal energy use when they can sell oil and gas to others at very high prices.

  58. 58.

    demimondian

    September 1, 2006 at 11:50 am

    I don’t think that any rational person questions that Iran has every reason (and right) to build nuclear reactors for electricity. I wish I genuinely believed that Iran was a rational state actor. I have not seen what I would recognize as internal state controls pushing back on their pres. — by contrast, in the United States, it’s very clear, due to our social transparency, that we are pushing back, and that the President is being pushed into a corner where he either caves or is removed from power.

    That’s the benefit of a democratic system to other countries, by the way — the corrective functions of a rational state are seen in operation in real time. That serves as a powerful confidence-building mechanism all by itself.

  59. 59.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 11:55 am

    Zifnab,

    Stats please

    Don’t waste your time; I’ve already asked about that one in the past–last week, in fact.

  60. 60.

    Zifnab

    September 1, 2006 at 11:56 am

    The problem is not Musharraf. The problem is a potential lack of Musharaf. If he dies (and there have been numerous assasination attempts), then it is likely that the current ruling structure will collapse and there is a not insignificant chance of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Kasmiri insurgents or al Qaeda-type terrorists, who are not rational state actors.

    I do question this logic for a number of small detailed-orientied reasons. I don’t know how much physics or mechanical engineering, much less nuclear science, you took in college (admittedly, mine was a bit sparse too), but I’ve had this conversation with Engineering friends and the general consensus is that nuclear weapons are large, heavy, and complicated.

    There’s a reason people don’t cook nukes up in their basements like they do pipe-bombs and anthrax. The idea that a nuclear weapon can be smuggled out of a country revolves heavily around the notion that a nuclear weapon can fit inside a briefcase or under a really big coat. Even small yield nukes are very large and very heavy. What’s more, this isn’t C4 we’re talking about either. Enriched Plutonium doesn’t detonate if you hit it with a hammer or light it on fire.

    Nukes are not user-friendly weapons. In the midst of a nationwide political collapse, the idea that insurgents would be running in and out of nuclear bunkers carting fissle material out strapped to their backs is impractical. I suspect if Pakistan ever did collapse on itself, politically, some upstart general would be more likely to nuke one of his own cities to prove a point than to nuke anyone else.

  61. 61.

    Zifnab

    September 1, 2006 at 11:59 am

    Don’t waste your time; I’ve already asked about that one in the past—last week, in fact.

    It’s more a rhetorical demand. Darrell tends to simmer down a bit when actually ask him to validate a claim.

  62. 62.

    Andrew

    September 1, 2006 at 12:06 pm

    I’m not suggesting that Pakistani militants could get access to a miniturized warhead and smuggle it into the US.

    I’m suggesting that the weak control and security structures guarding the Pakistani bombs could collapse during a coup or civil war. Sympathetic or dead Pakistani army and nuclear scientists would not stand in the way of well armed inurgents loading even a large nuclear device onto a truck. Said truck could easily make it to Kashmir or Kabul. AQ Kahn, father of the Pakistani bomb, had no qualms about providing advanced nuclear technology to a number of groups “unfriendly” to the US.

    There are indeed plans for the American military to sieze the Pakistani nuclear arsenal if Musharraf falls.

  63. 63.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 12:28 pm

    There are indeed plans for the American military to sieze the Pakistani nuclear arsenal

    Sure. But does the government know that you have them written inside the flap of a Cheetos box?

  64. 64.

    Zifnab

    September 1, 2006 at 12:29 pm

    Sympathetic or dead Pakistani army and nuclear scientists would not stand in the way of well armed inurgents loading even a large nuclear device onto a truck. Said truck could easily make it to Kashmir or Kabul. AQ Kahn, father of the Pakistani bomb, had no qualms about providing advanced nuclear technology to a number of groups “unfriendly” to the US.

    That’s what I’m saying, though. A nuclear weapon is not a handgrenade. They don’t leave these things just laying around on military bases with big green buttons to detonate them. A general with a nuclear weapon already in his possession could probably utilize it, but a bunch of rebel thugs raiding a military base wouldn’t know how to maintain, utilize, or detonate a warhead without expert technical advice.

    I suppose its possible that AQ Kahn could work sympathetically with a group of insurgents, but the politics of that would be sticky. Again, I’d see it as more likely for the bomb to be used within Pakistan’s own borders than to see it shipped abroad.

  65. 65.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 12:32 pm

    Regarding loose nuclear material and anarchy, it might be more likely for the locals to loot it and then throw it out, taking only the barrels:

    As Saddam Hussein’s regime collapsed last month villagers began looting barrels of the uranium oxide, known as “yellowcake”, from the site, which they then emptied to use to store water, milk and yoghurt.

    Almost all of the material was later recovered by the IAEA, and then unilaterally transferred to the US.

  66. 66.

    Punchy

    September 1, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    As Saddam Hussein’s regime collapsed last month villagers began looting barrels of the uranium oxide, known as “yellowcake”, from the site, which they then emptied to use to store water, milk and yoghurt.

    I love yellow cake. Beats that chocolate shit anyday.

    Nothing like a little milk ‘n’ U-238 sprinkles….

  67. 67.

    Northman

    September 1, 2006 at 12:37 pm

    Just a quick note regarding the highly enriched uranium (HEU) finds in Iran. Everybody seems to confuse HEU with weapons-grade enrichment levels. HEU is defined as anything greater than 20% enrichment, which gives a fair bit of leeway before hitting weapons grade of approximately 90-95%. While most nuclear reactors do use uranium enriched to 5-7%, there are also several research reactors which use HEU enriched to between 20 and 40%. The previous two discoveries of Pakistani HEU was enriched to 36%, which is the grade used in a research reactor the Pakistanis have.

    Unless this last example is different, the IAEA hasn’t yet found even traces of weapons-grade uranium in Iran.

  68. 68.

    Jon H

    September 1, 2006 at 12:38 pm

    Zifnab writes: ” A general with a nuclear weapon already in his possession could probably utilize it, but a bunch of rebel thugs raiding a military base wouldn’t know how to maintain, utilize, or detonate a warhead without expert technical advice.”

    The problem is that the military officials who directly control the use of the weapons, and know what to do, may well be in league with the “rebels”.

  69. 69.

    bomb them

    September 1, 2006 at 12:42 pm

    Eh, just bomb the whole country and be done with it already, geez. that is so much easier than all this fancy debate. And it would really do wonders for our economy. Man, I hate Arabs.

  70. 70.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 12:45 pm

    Stats please. From what I’ve seen, that title seems to sit firmly in the hands of Saudi Arabia

    Well, since your completely unsubstantiated “from what I’ve seen” observation is wrong… As for me sustantiating my claim, the US State Dept. says Iran is the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” Again here

    zifnab likes to challenge me when I cite well established positions which no one other than he and few other whackjobs dispute.. this example of him challenging my “controversial” claim that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world is typical.

  71. 71.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 12:48 pm

    what is the solution, or are the dems just going to whine about it.

    You can read this thread to see how the left really feels about it. Most opnely state that it’s “no big deal” if Iranian mullahs get nuclear weapons, and anyway, it’s the “US’s fault” or “Bush’s fault” for ‘pushing’ them toward weapons. No need for the right to spin or frame anything, as the left is revealing how disconnected from reality they are with their own words.

  72. 72.

    The Other Steve

    September 1, 2006 at 12:50 pm

    Unless this last example is different, the IAEA hasn’t yet found even traces of weapons-grade uranium in Iran.

    That seems to coincide with this article

    Iran began enriching another small quantity last week, but inspectors wrote that there have been more substantial pauses than progress. They noted that the Iranians are working at a much slower pace than the IAEA, outside nuclear experts and some foreign intelligence agencies had forecast.

    Iran had said it would be operating three cascades by now, each with 164 centrifuges able to enrich uranium. Instead, one cascade is assembled and is working only sporadically.

    “Their progress is far less than expected,” said David Albright, a nuclear expert who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security. “Whether it’s because of technical problems or self-restraint it’s hard to gauge, but I don’t think the U.S. can deliver on its promise to get hard sanctions when Iran is barely progressing.”

  73. 73.

    Jon H

    September 1, 2006 at 12:51 pm

    Zifnab writes: “I suppose its possible that AQ Kahn could work sympathetically with a group of insurgents, but the politics of that would be sticky. Again, I’d see it as more likely for the bomb to be used within Pakistan’s own borders than to see it shipped abroad.”

    AQ Khan clearly wasn’t concerned about the politics. And the only politics Musharraf cared about, vis a vis AQ Khan, was in protecting Khan from punishment and from questioning by foreign investigators. The man’s in house arrest, living in luxury, shielded from anything else. This is all because the Pakistani people essentially revere the man and don’t consider it a problem that he was giving nuclear tech to other Islamic states (and possibly others).

    If Musharraf falls, Al Qaeda and the Taliban will have plenty of support within the Pakistani establishment and military. AQ Khan would probably be freed in short order, and would probably work with Al Qaeda. Why not? It’s not like the US is going to invade a nuclear-armed country of 300 million.

    The Musharraf regime is an exceedingly thin, fragile crust of compliance with American interests, atop a stinking morass of Saudi-funded Islamist fervor.

  74. 74.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 12:56 pm

    Darrell, I certainly do believe that there are many on the right that are all for nuking Iran. I think the term that has been used is “limited nuclear strike.”

    “Many” on the right? Who are these legions of imaginary conservatives? No, you just pulled that talking point out of your ass and when called on it, you still don’t provide citation. As for your question what is my solution? I don’t see any good options here. Diplomacy is almost certainly not going to work, and diplomacy is buying Iran more time. I think it’s unacceptable to permit the mullahs get their hands on nuclear weapons, which leaves us with few options. I think targeted missile strikes on their known nuclear facilities will be necessary, ‘bunker busters’ and all.. that’s probably what it will come down to.

    I haven’t heard anyone on the right talking about “nuking” Iran, certainly not any conservative congressmen or Senators that I’m aware of.. but I’m sure you can dredge up 2 commenters off of freerepublic, two justify your talking points

  75. 75.

    Jon H

    September 1, 2006 at 12:57 pm

    Darrell writes: “What I’ve seen is the Saudi govt over the past 3 years cracking down on terrorists, which threaten Saudi leadership. ”

    Bully for them What about the ones that threaten everyone else?

    What about the funding for extremist mosques and schools worldwide?

    If it’s not Saudi, it’s probably Pakistan – tens of thousands of people have died in Kashmir.

  76. 76.

    Krista

    September 1, 2006 at 1:07 pm

    “Many” on the right? Who are these legions of imaginary conservatives?

    They’re hanging out with the “millions” of liberals who were upset with Reagan for poking the USSR with a sharp stick.

  77. 77.

    jg

    September 1, 2006 at 1:12 pm

    A general with a nuclear weapon already in his possession could probably utilize it, but a bunch of rebel thugs raiding a military base wouldn’t know how to maintain, utilize, or detonate a warhead without expert technical advice.

    Anyone read Sum of All fears by Tom Clancy?

    Hey Darrell, you read 1984 yet? How about you at least read Animal Farm. Its short and has talking animals, you’ll especially like the pig Napoleon.

  78. 78.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 1:13 pm

    They’re hanging out with the “millions” of liberals who were upset with Reagan for poking the USSR with a sharp stick.

    Krista, you’ve complained before that I unfairly accuse the leftists posting here of debating in bad faith. So I’ll point out that this post of yours is a typical example.

  79. 79.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 1:14 pm

    How about you at least read Animal Farm. Its short and has talking animals, you’ll especially like the pig Napoleon.

    In just about every thread, when the lefties cannot answer the substance of my arguments, out come the personal insults, because that’s all they have left.

  80. 80.

    jh

    September 1, 2006 at 1:16 pm

    No need for the right to spin or frame anything, as the left is revealing how disconnected from reality they are with their own words.

    No need for the left to spin or frame anything, as the right is revealing how disconnected from reality they are with their own words.

    There all fixed.

  81. 81.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    I haven’t heard anyone on the right talking about “nuking” Iran

    Take a fucking position, and make an argument then.

    Or STFU.

  82. 82.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    Stats please. From what I’ve seen, that title seems to sit firmly in the hands of Saudi Arabia

    Well, since your completely unsubstantiated “from what I’ve seen” observation is wrong… As for me sustantiating my claim, the US State Dept. says Iran is the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” Again here

    Putting aside the fact that you’re just slavishly going with what the state department says, your argument is that this supports you claim, and refutes this Saudi Arabia claim, then? Let’s take a look:

    The U.S. State Department says in a new report that Iran was the “most active” state sponsor of terrorism last year, putting the Tehran government atop a group of six countries cited in the department’s annual report on terrorism that remain subject to U.S. sanctions.

    Yeah baby, Iran is #1… out of 6!

    In addition to Iran and Syria, the countries on the U.S. terrorism list are Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, and Libya.

    Number one out of six according to the state department, and of those six, Saudi Arabia didn’t make the list. Nor did Pakistan, for that matter. Unfair and unbalanced? Color me unsurprised.

  83. 83.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 1:22 pm

    No, you just pulled that talking point out of your ass and when called on it, you still don’t provide citation.

    Why do you let this fucking clown post here?

  84. 84.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    the lefties cannot answer the substance of my arguments

    Which post in this thread contains your “argument?”

  85. 85.

    srv

    September 1, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    I don’t see any good options here.

    duuuhhhhhhhhhh….

    In just about every thread, when the lefties cannot answer the substance of my arguments

    That’s because there is no substance. It’s “unacceptable”. So “drop some bunker busters”. As though that is going to solve the problem.

    Darrell, the mullahs have been in power between 1979. Between 1979 and 2002, where were all your worries about Iranian nuclear ambitions? What changed first, the US rhetoric or Iranian ambitions?

    They’re going to get nukes buddy, and there isn’t shit you can do about it now. Thanks to Bush-lovers like you.

  86. 86.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 1:27 pm

    What changed first, the US rhetoric or Iranian ambitions?

    Are you suggesting that the mullahs’ nuclear ambitions didn’t start until George Bush?

    They’re going to get nukes buddy, and there isn’t shit you can do about it now.

    And another leftist elaborates his/her ‘solution’ to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

  87. 87.

    Pooh

    September 1, 2006 at 1:29 pm

    Folks, we were doing so well by the end here. Keep your powder dry, don’t aim at the jackalope.

  88. 88.

    jh

    September 1, 2006 at 1:30 pm

    They’re going to get nukes buddy, and there isn’t shit you can do about it now. Thanks to Bush-lovers like you.

    All tough guys like Darrell can do about is shit in their pants and come here to annoy people.

    Darrell,

    WHAT do you propose we do about Iran’s nuclear ambition?

    I haven’t seen you put forth anything resembling a plan yet.

  89. 89.

    Tom in Texas

    September 1, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    You can’t fight a conventional war against terrorist elements because they are typically within the minority even in their own country. Iran’s leadership is decrepit enough to where they cannot mobilize or build the national will necessary for an offensive. The only way they could build a true threat to us would be if they were provoked into doing so, causing nationalism to override legitimate doubts for the average Iranian.

  90. 90.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 1:35 pm

    WHAT do you propose we do about Iran’s nuclear ambition?

    I haven’t seen you put forth anything resembling a plan yet.

    12:56pm post

  91. 91.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 1:37 pm

    Six in 10 polled think there will be more terrorism in this country because the U.S. went to war in Iraq.

    Associated Press poll via MSNBC, today.

    If this thread is any indication … can anyone describe (a) what the US official, avowed strategy for Iran will be in the next 6-12-24 months, and (b) how that strategy will be viewed by the American public?

  92. 92.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 1:37 pm

    Color me unsurprised

    Color you ignorant too

  93. 93.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 1:40 pm

    You can’t fight a conventional war against terrorist elements because they are typically within the minority even in their own country

    That statement more applies to Lebanon than Iran. In Lebanon, Hezbollah may make up part the govt, but are not in control of the govt. With Iran, the terrorist supporting mullahs are in control of the government. They are the very ones supporting terrorists.

  94. 94.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 1:41 pm

    Folks, we were doing so well by the end here. Keep your powder dry, don’t aim at the jackalope

    Pooh is like a broken record.. every other post talking about ‘jackalopes’. Over and over and over again. Move on man.

  95. 95.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 1:41 pm

    I haven’t heard anyone on the right talking about “nuking” Iran

    That’s because Dick Cheney wasn’t talking to you.

  96. 96.

    Pixie

    September 1, 2006 at 1:42 pm

    Darrell Says:

    WHAT do you propose we do about Iran’s nuclear ambition?

    I haven’t seen you put forth anything resembling a plan yet.

    12:56pm post

    In other words, we have to nuke em! Good job!

  97. 97.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 1:44 pm

    Color you ignorant too

    Yeah, I’m ignorant about all sorts of things. For example, I didn’t know that IraqIran attacked us on 9/11, either.

  98. 98.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 1:45 pm

    That’s because Dick Cheney wasn’t talking to you.

    Ah yes, nothing like unsubstantiated accusations from unnamed sources to ‘prove’ your point Pb.

  99. 99.

    jaime

    September 1, 2006 at 1:45 pm

    I think targeted missile strikes on their known nuclear facilities will be necessary, ‘bunker busters’ and all.. that’s probably what it will come down to.

    This isn’t CIV III. You’re not playing HALO, you ignorant chickenhawk cheeto eating fuck. We have an entire hawk administration run by the equivalent of swivel chair keyboard kommandos. We can’t hit all of their facilites and the repercussions of an attack, especially a failed one, would be unimaginable.

    Join and fight or play XBox in your mom’s basement. Leave military policy to the sane.

  100. 100.

    Pixie

    September 1, 2006 at 1:46 pm

    “I think targeted missile strikes on their known nuclear facilities will be necessary, ‘bunker busters’ and all.. that’s probably what it will come down to.”

    I’m just wondering…what happens when you strike a nuclear bomb with a missle? Does it destroy the entire facility? Or does it trigger nuclear bomb to go off?

    And exactly, how would we know where these facilities are? Do you think our intelligence is that good? I mean, we KNEW were the WMDs were, are you sure you want to just strike out at Iran blindly? That is an act of war afterall, and an act of agression…kind of like what we are afraid of here.

  101. 101.

    Tom in Texas

    September 1, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    With Iran, the terrorist supporting mullahs are in control of the government. They are the very ones supporting terrorists.

    Just because a government is in power does not make them the majority in the country. See Britain for one example. Iran’s mullahs maintain peace through a massive subsidy program that allows their citizens to live cheaply. Most Iranians would not support a war with Israel or the US because the govt couldn’t afford such subsidies any longer, and it would ruin their lives.

  102. 102.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    You’re not playing HALO, you ignorant chickenhawk cheeto eating fuck

    So much anger, so few brains.

  103. 103.

    srv

    September 1, 2006 at 1:49 pm

    What changed first?

    Fox reports on Natanz

    Why wasn’t Natanz started in 1979? 1983? Or 1987? or 1991? Or 1993? Or 1995? Why?

    But as Darrell believes – there is, of course, no way, whatsoever, that there is any correlation between GW’s presidency and Iranian nuclear ambitions. It is inconceivable. Completely beyond the realm of possibility. Everything GW has ever said occurs in a vacuum. Nothing he ever does can possibly impact the policies of other countries.

  104. 104.

    jh

    September 1, 2006 at 1:49 pm

    I think targeted missile strikes on their known nuclear facilities will be necessary, ‘bunker busters’ and all.. that’s probably what it will come down to.

    Known nuclear sites? Really Corporal Hicks? That’s your solution?

    Reasons why your ‘solution’ will make things worse

    1. Iran has more than one secret nuclear facility that our intelligence guys can’t find.

    2. Many of the known Iranian nuclear facilities are buried so deep that bunker busters are ineffective against them.

    3. Bombing Iran will be an act of War and will further inflame the Islamic world. Doint so will be an even more effective recruiting device for Islamic extremist groups than anything we’ve done since invading Iraq.

    4. It won’t work and Iran will keep right on doing what it was doing.

    5. A direct attack on Iran will only strengthen the fundamentalist influence on its government, and in every other country with large Muslim populations.

    In short, it’s ‘scissors and paste stupid’ to bomb Iran.

    As someone pointed out earlier, if we can survive Krazy Kommisars with THOUSANDS OF NUKES AIMED DIRECTLY AT US, we can survive a misanthropic mullah with a handful of them.

    IF we play it smart.

  105. 105.

    jaime

    September 1, 2006 at 1:54 pm

    How’s that weight loss plan going, Darrell? Still not able to see your dick? You’re gonna have to be able to actually bend over to touch your toes in the military. Or at least get comfortable getting on your knees to blow people so you could avoid service.

  106. 106.

    John S.

    September 1, 2006 at 1:55 pm

    Folks, we were doing so well by the end here. Keep your powder dry, don’t aim at the jackalope.

    Indeed, Pooh.

    It’s fairly obvious that Darrell is the proverbial tar baby. He looks like such an easy target, but the instant you engage him, you realize that you are stuck in a mess and there is no easy way to disengage without getting yourself stuck even further.

    Please, do not punch the tar baby.

    Why most of you persist in doing so really is beyond my comprehension.

  107. 107.

    tBone

    September 1, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    Jesus, Darrell, we get it. You like pie! Do you really have to repeat yourself over and over again?

    I heart Greasemonkey.

  108. 108.

    jaime

    September 1, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    And exactly, how would we know where these facilities are? Do you think our intelligence is that good?

    He doesn’t know and he doesn’t care. His job is to talk tough while his arteries rot in his swivel chair and other people’s kids’ die.

  109. 109.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 1:57 pm

    Why most of you persist in doing so really is beyond my comprehension.

    Well, you could write and ask.

    I’ll revert to my old url here so that you can go there and get my email address.

  110. 110.

    jaime

    September 1, 2006 at 1:59 pm

    Why most of you persist in doing so really is beyond my comprehension.

    I just want to sign him up for military duty and have him posting from the Anbar province.

  111. 111.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    Darrell,

    What’s that you say, you want more? Well, it’s out there, and it’s not hard to find. If you haven’t seen it, then you just haven’t been paying attention.

  112. 112.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 2:02 pm

    what is my solution? I don’t see any good options here. Diplomacy is almost certainly not going to work, and diplomacy is buying Iran more time. I think it’s unacceptable to permit the mullahs get their hands on nuclear weapons, which leaves us with few options. I think targeted missile strikes on their known nuclear facilities will be necessary, ‘bunker busters’ and all.. that’s probably what it will come down to.

    In short, you advocate immediate military action which includes bombing Iran.

    Diplomacy will be given no chance to work, since you have already decided it won’t work.

    Therefore, your doctrine is that any country that embarks on a nuclear technology program gets one chance to back down to verbal pressure, and then WHAMMO gets the bunker busters.

    Got it. Now go away, you crazy fuck.

  113. 113.

    srv

    September 1, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    Please, do not punch the tar baby.

    If there wasn’t a Darrell, someone would have to invent him.

  114. 114.

    jg

    September 1, 2006 at 2:04 pm

    Darrell Says:

    How about you at least read Animal Farm. Its short and has talking animals, you’ll especially like the pig Napoleon.

    In just about every thread, when the lefties cannot answer the substance of my arguments, out come the personal insults, because that’s all they have left.

    I was fucking with you, not insulting you. Animal Farm isn’t a children’s book. Its an allegory.

  115. 115.

    jaime

    September 1, 2006 at 2:05 pm

    WHAMMO gets the bunker busters.

    Bunker busters aren’t always effective either. Remember those ‘precision strikes’ at Saddam Hussein at the beginning of the war? Or the bunker busters aimed at the Taliban, which Republicans tell me, doesn’t exist anymore.

  116. 116.

    jaime

    September 1, 2006 at 2:07 pm

    because that’s all they have left.

    Really. So Republicans should run on the success of Iraq? Maybe Katrina. No. It’s all about GDP, bitches.

  117. 117.

    RSA

    September 1, 2006 at 2:08 pm

    I think targeted missile strikes on their known nuclear facilities will be necessary, ‘bunker busters’ and all.. that’s probably what it will come down to.

    I think that it’s reasonable to respond to this, because it’s part of mainstream thinking on the right. The question then is What happens next? Bush and company had the same idea: “We need to invade Iraq to take out Saddam’s WMDs.” But they had no idea about what would happen afterwards, and it shows now. So, let’s say that we target missiles at Iran’s suspected nuclear facilities. What happens then? Do we wait and see whether peace and light will descend on the world afterwards?

  118. 118.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 2:13 pm

    RSA,

    I believe their plan is this: “history will judge”. That is to say, 50 years later, if all we’re left with is a smoking pile of rubble, at least *then* we’ll know that the war in Iraq didn’t work out as planned. We’d still have to wait a few years to find out whether or not the subsequent war in Iran was a success, though.

  119. 119.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 2:14 pm

    So, let’s say that we target missiles at Iran’s suspected nuclear facilities. What happens then?

    Well, if this missiles do their job, the Iranian mullahs won’t be getting their hands on any home grown nuclear weapons anytime soon, would they?

    I’m not sure this observation is just mainstream thinking ‘on the right’.. I think it’s mainstream thinking for most Americans..

  120. 120.

    jg

    September 1, 2006 at 2:14 pm

    The question then is What happens next? Bush and company had the same idea: “We need to invade Iraq to take out Saddam’s WMDs.” But they had no idea about what would happen afterwards, and it shows now.

    You make an excuse about having to get to work early for an important meeting, get dressed fast and get out.

  121. 121.

    jh

    September 1, 2006 at 2:15 pm

    What happens then?

    Didn’t you get the memo?

    Iranians will become Jeffersonian democrats, too scared of the United States’ overwhelming might to do anything else resembling building a military deterrent to anyone or anything.

  122. 122.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    RSA,

    I believe their plan is this: “history will judge”. That is to say, 50 years later, if all we’re left with is a smoking pile of rubble, at least then we’ll know that the war in Iraq didn’t work out as planned.

    Or better yet, Iranian mullahs get the nuclear weapons, use them to turn a couple of our largest cities into a ‘smoking pile of rubble’.. Before leftists finally pull their heads out of their collective ass to recognize what we’re dealing with

  123. 123.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    The question then is What happens next? Bush and company had the same idea:

    “What happens next” in Bushworld is whatever they want to happen. In Iraq, it was flowers, and democracy, and cheap oil, and acclaim for themselves.

    In Iran, who knows what crazy hubristic shit they will imagine?

    Darrell is not the tarbaby people should be worried about in this context. The Middle East is the biggest tarbaby on the planet. That’s the one we should be wary of.

  124. 124.

    Davebo

    September 1, 2006 at 2:17 pm

    Animal Farm isn’t a children’s book. Its an allegory.

    Now you’ve totally confused the poor guy.

    An Allewhat?

  125. 125.

    John S.

    September 1, 2006 at 2:19 pm

    If there wasn’t a Darrell, someone would have to invent him.

    Quite frankly I think there is enough disagreement on most issues amongst the rest of us that we don’t need to conjure up a tar baby to get ourselves mentally stuck on.

  126. 126.

    Andrew

    September 1, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    Everyone calm down.

    n.b. Iran has had weapons of mass destruction for over twenty years and deployed them in battle against Iraq. And yet not a single one has been handed to Hizbullah for use against Israel or any other target.

    Please explain why it would different with nuclear weapons.

  127. 127.

    John S.

    September 1, 2006 at 2:22 pm

    Or better yet, Iranian mullahs get the nuclear weapons, use them to turn a couple of our largest cities into a ‘smoking pile of rubble’.

    Condoleeza…is that really you?

    We’re honored to have you posting here at BJ, Madam Secretary.

    Respectfully, though, this was the same hyperbole you and the administration used in regard to Iraq, and that assessment proved to be wrong. So, given your track record on these matters why should we believe you this time?

  128. 128.

    jaime

    September 1, 2006 at 2:22 pm

    Well, if this missiles do their job, the Iranian mullahs won’t be getting their hands on any home grown nuclear weapons anytime soon, would they?

    Seeing as how the DoD has concluded they are at least five years away from nukes, they wouldn’t be getting their hands on any home grown weapons any time soon anyway.

    I know why you’re too hefty to see your own penis, Darrell, its from eating all the candy that the greatful citizens of Iraq have thrown at us.

  129. 129.

    Face

    September 1, 2006 at 2:24 pm

    I say we drop tatical nukes on their underground facilities. Even if we miss the centriuges, we’ll at least take out a General or three.

    If the Dumbocrats cant see the value in wiping out the Iranian Army while ostensibly eliminating the nuclear threat, then they’re just idiots.

  130. 130.

    Pixie

    September 1, 2006 at 2:32 pm

    “Well, if this missiles do their job, the Iranian mullahs won’t be getting their hands on any home grown nuclear weapons anytime soon, would they?”

    So IF the missiles correctly target the places we have determined (through slam dunk intelligence no doubt)house the nuclear weapons (which may or may not exist)then the evil Moo-lahs will immediately throw up their hands Aw shucks style and go along their merry way?
    I think the more likely scenario is that we target some random locations pulled out of Rummy’s ass, bomb the hell out of everything for a while and then begin a campaign to win those hearts and minds the American way for the next 10 years or so before finding out they didn’t have squat.

    Call it Iraq V 2.0.

    “I’m not sure this observation is just mainstream thinking ‘on the right’.. I think it’s mainstream thinking for most Americans..”

    I think it’s probably mainstream thinking for about 33% of the population.

  131. 131.

    Davebo

    September 1, 2006 at 2:33 pm

    I say we drop tatical nukes on their underground facilities. Even if we miss the centriuges, we’ll at least take out a General or three.

    If the Dumbocrats cant see the value in wiping out the Iranian Army a general or three while ostensibly eliminating the nuclear threat, then they’re just idiots.

    Brilliant logic. Reminds me of a Steely Dan album for some reason.

  132. 132.

    Face

    September 1, 2006 at 2:43 pm

    It’s either Iran or Israel that’ll be bombed back into the Stone Ages. I say we jump-start the process and nail Iran, then watch as Syria suddenly becomes friendly and the other Middle East regimes realize we mean buisness.

    Strategic, pin-point strikes on Tehran and other places should turn back their ambitions for at least another 20 years…it’s so simple, yet all a majority of lefties want to do is let Iran just walk away scot-free….

  133. 133.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    I say we jump-start the process and nail Iran, then watch as Syria suddenly becomes friendly and the other Middle East regimes realize we mean buisness.

    Yes, because that worked so well last time.

  134. 134.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    Yes, because that worked so well last time.

    Pb, ‘Face’ = Doug J or GOP4me. Better to use snark to try and divert attention away, espcially when your side is running around making comments so whacked that conservatives don’t need snark to make them up. Regarding Iran,

    Say for a moment that they were pursuing a nuclear weapon. My question is—who the hell cares?

    I think you lefties should run with that one

  135. 135.

    RSA

    September 1, 2006 at 3:01 pm

    Well, if this missiles do their job, the Iranian mullahs won’t be getting their hands on any home grown nuclear weapons anytime soon, would they?

    This is true in exactly the same way that we can say that Iraq can no longer attack us with WMD. That is, you’re focusing on what happens the instant after the bombs hit. Mission accomplished. As Pb ironically suggests, what happens in the few years afterwards is important, too. (For example, how many people think commercial air travel would survive this kind of exchange?)

  136. 136.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 3:07 pm

    This is true in exactly the same way that we can say that Iraq can no longer attack us with WMD

    In the case of Iraq, our objective is/was to topple Saddam and try and create a stable democracy in the heart of arab muslim middle east. Same objective as with Afghanistan.

    With Iran, in the short term, the best that we can hope to do is keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the mullahs. Of course, if Iran is caught sponsoring terrorist acts which cause another 9/11 or worse attack on our cities…then all bets are off.

  137. 137.

    RSA

    September 1, 2006 at 3:18 pm

    In the case of Iraq, our objective is/was to topple Saddam and try and create a stable democracy in the heart of arab muslim middle east. Same objective as with Afghanistan.

    Have you missed the news lately?

    Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction.

    Bait and switch is no longer an option. And besides, you’re ignoring the question.

  138. 138.

    Pixie

    September 1, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    “In the case of Iraq, our objective is/was to topple Saddam and try and create a stable democracy in the heart of arab muslim middle east. Same objective as with Afghanistan.”

    Sounds a lot like Nation Building. Isn’t that something “the right” generally disdains?

    According to Mr Bush’s ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, 18 March:

    The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament…

    The danger is clear: using chemical, biological, or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfil their stated ambitions and kill thousands of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other…

    Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorised to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction…

    Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power”

    Funny…I don’t seem to remember hearing anything about creating a stable democracy.

  139. 139.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 3:27 pm

    Heh. Don’t even talk to me about nation building. That was one of Bush’s more prominent broken campaign promises. If only he had listened to his own advice. Really.

    MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

    BUSH: Well, if it’s in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are — our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today’s military is too low. We’re having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we’re overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It’s to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.

  140. 140.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 3:28 pm

    Bait and switch is no longer an option. And besides, you’re ignoring the question.

    No bait and switch. There were over a dozen stated reasons for going into Iraq. Toppling Saddam and helping build a democracy in the heart of the middle east is not inconsistent with other security goals.. in fact, it’s entirely consistent with our other security goals

    And besides, you’re ignoring the question.

    What question are you talking about? The only question in your previous post is a question regarding a hypothetical situation and commercial airline industry..

  141. 141.

    RSA

    September 1, 2006 at 3:36 pm

    What question are you talking about?

    My question was “What happens next?” More specifically, say the U.S. destroys Iran’s suspected nuclear sites with missiles. How will that affect U.S. relations with the Middle East for the following, say, five years? (If the answer is “No one knows–it depends on the Iranians,” that’s the kind of thinking that’s gotten us into the current quagmire in Iraq.)

  142. 142.

    Face

    September 1, 2006 at 3:37 pm

    Darrell–

    Pb, ‘Face’ = Doug J or GOP4me

    What’s this mean?

  143. 143.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 3:40 pm

    Face,

    Darrell is asserting that you’re a spoof, written by either ‘DougJ’ or ‘GOP4Me’.

  144. 144.

    John S.

    September 1, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    There were over a dozen stated reasons for going into Iraq.

    No. There was only one reason given for invading Iraq: That they were a direct threat to America and its allies which needed to be neutralized.

    But reasons for the Iraq war are like rabbits, and over time they have reproduced vigorously.

    People like you just can’t seem to tell the difference between the progenitor and the offspring. This is all too evident in Senator Brownback’s display of the eagle and the egg, which are deemed to be the same.

  145. 145.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 3:44 pm

    What’s this mean?

    Face, we have a couple liberals invent ‘spoof’ characters and post on BJ. Your post sounded like DougJ pretending he was a conservative.

  146. 146.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 3:46 pm

    In the case of Iraq, our objective is/was to topple Saddam and try and create a stable democracy

    No. The original objective was to abate an immediate threat which turned out to have never existed.

    You’re a damned liar. Again.

  147. 147.

    The Other Steve

    September 1, 2006 at 3:46 pm

    I will buy Darrell a pacifier and a blanky. Hopefully this will make him feel safe and secure in lieu of his mommy.

  148. 148.

    chriskoz

    September 1, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    There were over a dozen stated reasons for going into Iraq.

    So… in that case wouldn’t it be a bit misleading (if not dishonest) to say we went to war to “topple Saddam and try and create a stable democracy”? At least without acknowledging the other “reasons”.

    While it may be true there was a list of several reasons for the Iraq war, there were only a very few that were “pushed” by the administration and pundits to any extent. And “democracy” was not one of them. It was almost all about the “danger” of Iraq and how we had to do something before we saw “the mushroom cloud” above a US city. And no doubt this line of argument was specifically chosen because it was well known Americans would not buy into expending blood and treasure for the “stable democracy” crap. To pretend otherwise is to try and re-write history.

  149. 149.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    No. There was only one reason given for invading Iraq

    That statement is patently false. Now run along

  150. 150.

    Dug Jay

    September 1, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    About the only upside I can think of relative to Iran getting the Bomb is that, should they choose to use it outside of the Middle East, it would most likely be in one of the Blue states, such as New York. Hopefully, such a use would take out many of those regulars at this site; unfortunately, I can’t envision them going after the Phoenix area.

  151. 151.

    Andrew

    September 1, 2006 at 3:52 pm

    Face, we have a couple liberals invent ‘spoof’ characters and post on BJ. Your post sounded like DougJ pretending he was a conservative because it was stupid..

  152. 152.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 3:53 pm

    there were only a very few that were “pushed” by the administration and pundits to any extent. And “democracy” was not one of them

    Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

    The Iraq liberation act was made law in 1998 under Clinton.

  153. 153.

    jg

    September 1, 2006 at 3:54 pm

    No bait and switch. There were over a dozen stated reasons for going into Iraq. Toppling Saddam and helping build a democracy in the heart of the middle east is not inconsistent with other security goals.. in fact, it’s entirely consistent with our other security goals

    So instead of one reason we toss out dozens in the hopes we can do something that appears to achieve one of them, then declare victory. Its not a bait and switch. Its a variation on the cold questioning techniques used by douches pretending to communicate with the dead.

  154. 154.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 3:56 pm

    It was almost all about the “danger” of Iraq and how we had to do something before we saw “the mushroom cloud” above a US city

    Actually, the President was quite clear on this:

    Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

    He also talked about a grave and growing threat, he never mentioned “mushroom clouds” you idiot

  155. 155.

    fester

    September 1, 2006 at 3:59 pm

    Pixie — in response to your post:

    I’m just wondering…what happens when you strike a nuclear bomb with a missle? Does it destroy the entire facility? Or does it trigger nuclear bomb to go off?

    Nuclear weapons are extraordinary precise pieces of engineering. Things have to go off precisely in the right order, with miniscule error bars of timing and location for a detonation to actually occur. If nuclear weapons were to get hit by an outside explosion, it is overwhelmingly likely that no detonation would occur, stuff inside of the nuclear warhead would break/misalign/malfunction, and any radiation effect would be local.

    The US has had a number of tactical and strategic bombers crash with nukes on board over the past sixty years (Rota Spain is the most famous, a B-52 accident) with no detonations as a result of a high speed collision between a bomb and a hard surface.

  156. 156.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    So instead of one reason we toss out dozens in the hopes we can do something that appears to achieve one of them, then declare victory

    The US Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of authorization to invade Iraq, an authorization which spelled out at least 18 different reasons why we needed to do it.. with 28 out of 45 Demcrat Senators supporting it. Not “tossed out”, but publically debated for a year and then voted on.

  157. 157.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 4:04 pm

    LOL. This just in from the Pentagon, on Iraq, via Hardball–“conditions could lead to civil war”. What a shock.

    In the report… attacks and casualties have soared. Executions. Spreading sectarian violence. Deadly turf wars. Retaliation.

    But… “conditions could lead to civil war”. Apparently Lee, Grant, Jackson, and Sherman haven’t showed up yet.

  158. 158.

    RSA

    September 1, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    There were 23 “whereas” clauses in the document Darrell helpfully linked to, of which regime change was one. I think it’s equally fair to say that the objective in Iraq was governed by this one:

    Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

    But this one didn’t get much play compared to the dozen or so that mention WMD or threats. Alternatively, we could be just cleaning up after the first Gulf War. I think arguing about this is comparable to arguing that slavery wasn’t the main issue in the Civil War.

  159. 159.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    Darrell,

    “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” — George W. Bush

    You idiot.

  160. 160.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 4:08 pm

    Pb Says:

    LOL. This just in from the Pentagon, on Iraq, via Hardball—”conditions could lead to civil war”.

    Yes, simply hilarious (“LOL”)

  161. 161.

    chriskoz

    September 1, 2006 at 4:09 pm

    The Iraq liberation act was made law in 1998 under Clinton.

    Yes… and I remember how in the run up to the Iraq war you couldn’t listen to an administration offical, read a newspaper, or turn on the TV news without hearing about Iraq liberation act. NOT.

    It was mushroom clouds and chemical weapons that were “pushed” as the reasons.

    I think one of previous poster was correct… you really should read Animal Farm. You might like the “rewrite history” theme.

  162. 162.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 4:12 pm

    You idiot.

    I stand corrected on that. But Bush most definitively made the detailed case that under the circumstances – 9/11 attacks, Iraq’s history of using WMDS, kicking out inspectors in 98 with tons of known WMDs including 4 tons of Vx unnaccounted for.. given those realities, it was too risky not to act.

  163. 163.

    jaime

    September 1, 2006 at 4:12 pm

    The Iraq liberation act was made law in 1998 under Clinton

    Imagine if Clinton actually invaded Iraq. Would “the right” have ever given him the authority? He couldn’t even shoot missles at Osama bin Laden without Rush Limbaugh saying “Wag the Dog”.

  164. 164.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 4:13 pm

    Yes… and I remember how in the run up to the Iraq war you couldn’t listen to an administration offical, read a newspaper, or turn on the TV news without hearing about Iraq liberation act. NOT.

    chriskoz, the Iraq liberation act was explicitly mentioned in the Senate resolution as one of the justifications for toppling Saddam.

  165. 165.

    Perry Como

    September 1, 2006 at 4:14 pm

    But this one didn’t get much play compared to the dozen or so that mention WMD or threats.

    Doesn’t anyone else remember the vial of freedom Colin Powell brought to the UN?

  166. 166.

    jaime

    September 1, 2006 at 4:15 pm

    But Bush most definitively made the detailed case that under the circumstances – 9/11 attacks, Iraq’s history of using WMDS, kicking out inspectors in 98 with tons of known WMDs including 4 tons of Vx unnaccounted for.. given those realities, it was too risky not to act.

    Bush never mentioned his main sources such as Chalabi was a criminal and Curveball was a drunk liar or that he KNEW of both before detailing his case.

  167. 167.

    chriskoz

    September 1, 2006 at 4:17 pm

    He also talked about a grave and growing threat, he never mentioned “mushroom clouds” you idiot

    I never claimed Bush used that exact term. But, the phrase WAS used by at least one high ranking official as a justification for invasion. And in general… that was the picture that the administration painted. We had to do something before our cities were attacked with WMD. Do you deny that?

    And once again… I see you have gone for the personal insults. (I guess this is where I would comment… it’s all you have. It’s what you are)

  168. 168.

    Zifnab

    September 1, 2006 at 4:18 pm

    In addition to Iran and Syria, the countries on the U.S. terrorism list are Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, and Libya.

    Are you fucking kidding me? Cuba? North Korea? That’s a fucking joke! How many planes a year are hijacked by Cuban radicals? Does North Korea even have a terror network, or is that just another word for “the army”? What’s more, exactly when has North Korea sponsored or launched terror attacks in or around the US?

    Yeah, real credible Darrell. Iran is number one out of Cuba and North Korea. And the biggest terror target in the US is Indiana. Fucking A! I hate this country so much sometimes!

    P.S. Sorry, I just got finished watching V for Vendetta. I’m on kinda a kick right now.

  169. 169.

    RSA

    September 1, 2006 at 4:18 pm

    Bush most definitively made the detailed case that under the circumstances. . . kicking out inspectors in 98. . .

    He also turned out to be mostly wrong. I remember listening to him in an interview a few years ago, talking about how Saddam didn’t let the inspectors in, and I experienced a sinking feeling, one of many at the time, that Bush had no idea what he was talking about, and that it didn’t even matter to him if some of the reasons he had for invading Iraq were wrong.

  170. 170.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 4:19 pm

    Bush never mentioned his main sources

    Who said Chalabi was his “main” source? The head of the CIA said it was a “slam dunk” that Iraq still had WMDs

  171. 171.

    chriskoz

    September 1, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    Darrell, I have acknoledged there were other “reasons” on the list. But, I have also repeatedly said that was NOT what was
    “pushed”. And to pretend otherwise is to “rewrite history”.

    I have no abouts that if we did a comparison of adminstaration comments leading up to the war… we would find far more references to WMD than to the Iraq liberation act. (I leave this as an excersice for the reader)

  172. 172.

    Andrew

    September 1, 2006 at 4:21 pm

    Can’t we just appease the evildoers by offering them a go at all of those terror targets in Indiana, no questions asked? Heck, let’s just give them the state and be done with it.

  173. 173.

    jaime

    September 1, 2006 at 4:22 pm

    Who said Chalabi was his “main” source?

    You accidentally on purpose forgot Curveball. Of course HE never got to sit next to Pickles during the State of the Union.

  174. 174.

    Proud Liberal

    September 1, 2006 at 4:23 pm

    Despite what the neocons might want the President to do about Iran, there aren’t any military options that don’t have very very grave consequences. Now, I would normally say that that would preclude the use of military force but we ARE talking about the Bush Administration. Rationality has no place in such a discussion.

    Thanks in good part to Bush and Rummy we don’t have a military left to do the job. Iran is not Iraq and look at the problems we are having there and if we attacked Iran our troops in Iraq would be incredibly vulnurable in that Shiia country.

    So, despite all the huffing and puffing, santions is the only approach that the US can take and I dont’ think they will be very effective in making Iran submit to the will of Washingtong. No good solutions here I am afraid.

  175. 175.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 4:26 pm

    Does North Korea even have a terror network

    Well, they were caught shipping scud missiles to Yemen. Since you ridicule the list, which countries should be on it which weren’t.. in your ‘expert’ opinion.

  176. 176.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 4:27 pm

    That statement is patently false. Now run along

    Nope. The American people were deliberately led to believe two things that were not true, namely WMDs and a connection to 911. Those two things were made the crux of the need for war, not by the people, but by the government.

    Those two things were false. There were no WMDs posing any threat, and there was no connection to 911.

    Bush was wrong, or lied. Either way, he doesn’t get a pass now because he was able to convince a lot of congresspeople to vote for his war. He owes them, and us, an apology. Only then does any word out of his mouth deserve to be taken at face value. And the same goes for you. Until you take responsibility, then there is no reason for anyone to take anything you say seriously.

    As if anyone would, but that’s another subject.

  177. 177.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 4:28 pm

    Who said Chalabi was his “main” source?

    Newsweek? Anyone who’s been paying attention? It all stemmed from Chalabi.

    When American spooks proved resistant, Chalabi cozied up to their counterparts in foreign intelligence services. To the Germans, Chalabi provided a source code named “Curveball” (appropriately, as it turned out), who told of Saddam’s building mobile bioweapons labs. Another defector sent to the DIA by Chalabi supported Curveball’s tale. DIA labeled this defector a “fabricator” and attached a warning notice to his report, but the notice was so highly restricted that other intelligence officials never saw it. Both defectors’ reports—apparently pure fiction—worked their way into official pronouncements and became part of the Bush administration’s building case for war. Months later, when Colin Powell was feeling burned for having dramatically presented “facts” to the United Nations Security Council that turned out to be shaky at best, the secretary of State privately, but bitterly, blamed Chalabi.

    Powell also faults the neocons in the Bush administration who swallowed Chalabi’s phony stories and pushed them into speeches by the president and vice president. With his clever sense for bureaucratic gamesmanship, Chalabi fed the neocons’ hunger for raw intelligence. If the CIA and other spy services weren’t going to come up with the goods on Saddam, then Chalabi would. He found a receptive audience in the office of the vice president and at the Pentagon. I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the veep’s chief of staff, and Wolfowitz were eagerly looking for links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. With his media friends, Chalabi hyped a story, often cited by the neocons, about a secret meeting in Prague between Muhammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, and a high-level Iraqi intelligence officer. (After months of investigation, the CIA and FBI determined that the meeting had never taken place.)

  178. 178.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 4:30 pm

    I have no abouts that if we did a comparison of adminstaration comments leading up to the war… we would find far more references to WMD than to the Iraq liberation act

    I agree with that. What I responded to was your definitive statement that creating a democracy in Iraq was ‘not on the list’, when it most certainly was. You’re moving goalposts now. Do you agree that it’s a good thing that Saddam and Sons were removed from power?

  179. 179.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 4:32 pm

    And while we’re at it, just to get back on topic–Did Iran Use Chalabi to Lure U.S. into Iraq? That was Fox News, asking all the hard questions, fifteen months too late. We report, you decide!

  180. 180.

    jg

    September 1, 2006 at 4:35 pm

    Darrell Says:

    Does North Korea even have a terror network

    Well, they were caught shipping scud missiles to Yemen.

    While its true that N.Korea sells missiles to anyone and everyone the question was do they have a terror network?

  181. 181.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 4:37 pm

    Do you agree that it’s a good thing that Saddam and Sons were removed from power?

    No, ends do not justify means. The ends you describe do not justify the corruption of the American intellgence community, lying to Congress, and deliberately scaring the American people into a war that did not make them safer, which was the stated objective, and the only one Americans cared about. Americans did not rally behind the war in order to liberate Iraq, or stand up for some dumbass principle. They did it to protect America from what they thought was a real threat, and they were duped.

    No, it is not better. Better would have been intel that was sound, and leadership of the country that was honest and restrained. Better would have been recognition that removing Saddam would create chaos in that country, bog us down in a war we can’t win, and destabilize the region.

    No, without question, it is not better. It is worse. We are worse off today than we were before the war, and nearly two thirds of Americans agree with me.

    So stop pimping that line of horseshit because it won’t fly here.

  182. 182.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    The ends you describe do not justify the corruption of the American intellgence community, lying to Congress

    There was no “corruption of the American intelligence community and no “lying” to Congress. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs.. How honest of you to assert otherwise

  183. 183.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 4:42 pm

    We are worse off today than we were before the war, and nearly two thirds of Americans agree with me.

    You know what, we had an election in 2004, and the American people at that time said who they “agreed” with

  184. 184.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 4:43 pm

    * Pb turns on auto-debunk

    Everyone Thought Iraq Had WMD

  185. 185.

    jg

    September 1, 2006 at 4:43 pm

    There was no “corruption of the American intelligence community and no “lying” to Congress. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs..

    …because the intelligence was fixed and the Congress was lied to when they were told they are recieving all the info the white house had.

  186. 186.

    Zifnab

    September 1, 2006 at 4:44 pm

    Another defector sent to the DIA by Chalabi supported Curveball’s tale. DIA labeled this defector a “fabricator” and attached a warning notice to his report, but the notice was so highly restricted that other intelligence officials never saw it.

    Wasn’t Curveball related to Chalabi? He was a relative or someone under Chalabi’s Government in Exile or something, wasn’t he?

    I mean, I wouldn’t give it all to Chalabi. That guy doesn’t control the CIA or stand as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces or anything. Certainly, Chalabi didn’t out undercover agents because their husbands wrote disapproving articles concerning non-existant deals with Niger.

  187. 187.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 4:45 pm

    Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs..

    No, they did not. I for example did not, and I further argued that even if he had them, he had no delivery system with which to deploy them outside his own borders. I also argued that he obviously had no motive, since he is not an Islamic fanatic and his main interest was in stealing his country’s oil money, not in territory or world power. His entire schtick was aimed at protecting a theft racket. Doing anything that provoked the US would have been crazy and suicidal, and he was clearly neither.

    I further argued that no connection to 911 had been established. And like Colin Powell, I argued that once Iraq was broken, we’d have a disaster on our hands just as the British did with their Mesopotamia mistake early in the 20th century.

    The proposed war made no sense militarily, or historically. It appeared to be a fool’s idea based on wishful thinking. And I turned out to be exactly right, as did a lot of people.

    The problem for you was that people who agreed with me were not on the tv channel or talk radio show that you were listening to. The fact that a lot of people were fooled into believing bullshit does not excuse the bullshit you goddammed ignorant fuckhead.

  188. 188.

    Zifnab

    September 1, 2006 at 4:46 pm

    The LA Times reported that Curveball was actually the brother of one of Ahmed Chalabi’s top aides. This raised additional questions about his reliability, as Chalabi was asked if he knew anything about mobile weapons labs a short time before Curveball emerged.

    There we are.

  189. 189.

    Proud Liberal

    September 1, 2006 at 4:46 pm

    Do you agree that it’s a good thing that Saddam and Sons were removed from power?

    let me ask you, is the removal of Saddam and sons worth the lives of 2600 Americans? or the horrible injuries of another 20,000? or the death of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis? or the destabilization of the entire region? or the huge recrutiment tool it provided al Qaeda? or the loss of credibility and prestige of our country? or the 300 billion dollars (and still counting) that could have been better utilized for homeland security?

    you tell me… was it worth it? to have Saddam sitting in a cell watching South Park?

  190. 190.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 4:46 pm

    Three in Four Americans Say If Iraq Did Not Have WMD or Support al-Qaeda, US Should Not Have Gone to War:

    Saddam’s Intent to Build WMD Not Seen as Sufficient Reason — October 28, 2004

  191. 191.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 4:47 pm

    You know what, we had an election in 2004

    You know what? That was two years ago, and that party is over.

  192. 192.

    jg

    September 1, 2006 at 4:47 pm

    His entire schtick was aimed at protecting a theft racket.

    Hey I know its hot here in the summer but stay on topic. The subject was Saddam not Bush.

  193. 193.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    Hey I know its hot here in the summer

    Phoenix?

    TGIS.

    Thank God It’s September.

  194. 194.

    jg

    September 1, 2006 at 4:50 pm

    Its still pretty damn hot through October IMO.

  195. 195.

    John S.

    September 1, 2006 at 4:55 pm

    That statement is patently false. Now run along.

    Do you ever bother to read to what you link to, or do you just reflexively link to things you assume make your case hoping that nobody will bother to check?

    By all means, explain how the AUMF cites any reason for the invasion of Iraq that cannot be classified under “threat to the US and its allies”. Since we know you’re a lying sack of shit, I’ll make the necessary citation for you:

    (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to:

    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

    Now run along little tar baby.

  196. 196.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 4:55 pm

    By Sept 20, on average, the nighttime temps will start to go down and the evenings and mornings will be nice and cool.

    People with pools notice it first … all of a sudden the pool water cools off.

    Then it’s October and it gets really beautiful here.

    Just do what I do: Starting on the 4th of July, I just count each SECOND until October. It helps pass the time.

  197. 197.

    Zifnab

    September 1, 2006 at 4:58 pm

    You know what, we had an election in 2004

    That’s right. Elections only come every 4 years, so if life changes between now and then you’re just going to have to sit down and wait till Nov 7th 2008 before you can disagree with the President again. And if you get the majority of votes* you can pick a new guy.

    *Note: Voting valid only for a sitting Supreme Court Justice. Non-Supreme Court Justices need not apply. Alternately, sitting Republican Speaker of the House may cast a vote if a court wishes to not be activist. See special rules and regulations. Valid only until the Republicans lose the majority in House or Court. For more information, see rules posted daily at http://www.GOP.com

  198. 198.

    RSA

    September 1, 2006 at 4:58 pm

    You know what, we had an election in 2004, and the American people at that time said who they “agreed” with.

    What happens if we ask them again, now? Oddly enough, we find that the American people think George W. Bush is less honest than Bill Clinton. Doesn’t that make us reconsider what was agreed on back in 2004? Lots of people might still like their used car salesman until they’ve owned the car for a few weeks.

  199. 199.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 5:00 pm

    Pb turns on auto-debunk
    Everyone Thought Iraq Had WMD

    Pb, if you’re going to quote a blog as a source, try and find one that at least has some credibility. Your blog source said:

    Clinton and the U.N. believed that Hussein had some weapons of mass destruction, in the form of limited stockpiles of chemical and perhaps some biological weapons. But they did not believe them to be an immediate threat, and did not believe they would leave the country

    But in actually, here is what was actually said at the time

    “The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

    “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
    –Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

  200. 200.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 5:03 pm

    But in actually, here is what was actually said at the time

    What is the relevance? The problem at hand is that the lying prick running the country NOW made a big mistake that we are still paying for.

    Why are you talking about Clinton? The guy in office NOW is the one responsible for the stupid war.

  201. 201.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 5:11 pm

    Since we know you’re a lying sack of shit, I’ll make the necessary citation

    Listen, we can all see that you’re an angry whackjob screaming truth to power and all, but my citation linking to wording int the Senate authorizarion was in response to this:

    No. There was only one reason given for invading Iraq

    That was, and still is, a patently false statement. Even a “lying sack of shit” like me can see that.

  202. 202.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 5:21 pm

    That was, and still is, a patently false statement

    Then you are done here.

    The war doesn’t stand up to challenge because the marketing guys had multiple reasons in their brochure. It fails because they failed. They failed to drill down into the intel. They failed to properly gauge the real threat. They failed because they overestimated their ability to handle the postwar problems. They failed because they pimped up fears based on threats that were close to absurd on their face, and turned out to be dead wrong. They failed because they either made, or swallowed, connections to 911 that were never there.

    They failed because they suppressed information that ran counter to the decisions they had already made. They failed because they didn’t listen to their own best people and heed their calls for restraint.

    And they continue to fail because they won’t take responsibility for what they did. They lied about it then and continue to lie about it now. Just like you.

  203. 203.

    Zifnab

    September 1, 2006 at 5:21 pm

    Listen, we can all see that you’re an angry whackjob screaming truth to power

    At least someone is doing it.

    No. There was only one reason given for invading Iraq

    That was, and still is, a patently false statement. Even a “lying sack of shit” like me can see that.

    Darrell is right here. I remember about half a dozen excuses for the invasion. I wouldn’t say the statement is patently false, as this would imply that the statement has a monopoly on falsehood. Sure, technically the resolution issued by the US Congress authorizing the President with War Powers in response to Iraq may have only technically listed two reason for going to war – namely:

    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

    which most reasonable people would remark refers to the Iraqi weapons programs (in that light, really just the one reason), but this nonetheless completely ignores the myriad of other reasons Bush claimed we went to war during his stump speaches and fireside chats. In that sense, there were many, many reasons for waging that particular war in the Middle East and John S. is a giant stinky liar head.

    Truth to power. Ho-ah!

  204. 204.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 5:23 pm

    John Cole, could you hold it down a little? Your insistence on voicing your views of all this is drowning out everyone else. Just because this is your blog doesn’t mean that your opinion now about the war is the only one that counts here.

  205. 205.

    John S.

    September 1, 2006 at 5:26 pm

    That was, and still is, a patently false statement. Even a “lying sack of shit” like me can see that.

    As a lying sack of shit, you wouldn’t know patently false if you beat you with a broom handle.

    I suppose technically, there are two reasons provided for invading Iraq:

    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

    But seeing as how we don’t really give a shit what goes on at the United Nations, I think only the first reason is pertinent. This of course is in stark contrast to what you, the lying sack of shit, had to say:

    There were over a dozen stated reasons for going into Iraq.

    That is what we call a patently false statement. Not that I expect a tar baby with buttons for eyes to understand that.

  206. 206.

    Perry Como

    September 1, 2006 at 5:27 pm

    How about a tasty shit sandwich?

  207. 207.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 5:28 pm

    Perry, your link doesn’t work.

  208. 208.

    jg

    September 1, 2006 at 5:30 pm

    ThymeZone Says:

    John Cole, could you hold it down a little? Your insistence on voicing your views of all this is drowning out everyone else. Just because this is your blog doesn’t mean that your opinion now about the war is the only one that counts here.

    Who is this, ‘John Cole’ of which you speak?

  209. 209.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 5:31 pm

    Old John Cole was a merry old soul,
    A merry old soul was he.

  210. 210.

    John S.

    September 1, 2006 at 5:34 pm

    Who is this, ‘John Cole’ of which you speak?

    A figment of our imaginations.

  211. 211.

    jg

    September 1, 2006 at 5:36 pm

    John Cole is a purple dragon wearing a yellow zip-up fleece?

  212. 212.

    CaseyL

    September 1, 2006 at 5:39 pm

    If we ignore away the fearful rhetoric, if we strip away the alarmist projections (pulled straight from the horse’s ass), then what we have is that Iran is enriching uranium in quantities insufficient for a bomb any time soon, does not have the necessary equipment to build a bomb even once it has enough enriched uranium, and wouldn’t be able to do anything except commit national suicide even if it had the necessary equipment to build an A-Bomb.

    I’m not an engineer, much less a nuclear engineer, much less a nuclear engineer specializing in weapons production.

    But I can and do listen to what people with exactly that expertise say. And they all say Iran is at least 5 years away from making a nuclear weapon – of any kind, mind you; and that’s assuming they get it right the first time.

    It’s isn’t at all suprising that the fear-mongers are right-wing Republicans. Right-wing Republicans are not only science illiterates, but actively hostile to science.

    Right-wing Republicans, whatever their actual religious leanings, already have bought in totally to a magical-thinking view of the universe.

    Magical thinking means whatever laws of cause and effect are inconvenient to whatever policy they’ve already decided upon can be shouted down, or just ignored.

    Magical thinking is what led right-wing Republicans to believe a war with Iraq would be a cakewalk, would pay for itself, and would be over in 6 months. Magical thinking is what led right-wing Republicans to believe we would be greeted as liberators by Iraqis, that there was no danger of ethnic/sectarian strife in Iraq, and that the insurgency is, now and forever, in its last throes – and certainly not in any way leading to civil war.

    Magical thinking is what’s leading right-wing Republicans to say that an airstrike on Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities will get them all, that Iran won’t retaliate in any meaningful way, that attacking Iran will have no repercussions for the US servicepeople stuck in Iraq, and that everything will go perfectly according to the failsafe war plans drawn up by the same geniuses who planned the war in Iraq.

    Right-wing Republicans long ago crossed the line from merely stupid to completely insane.

    I would no sooner believe anything they say about Iran, or what we “have” to do about it, than I would believe that a diet of peach pits and brown rice can cure metastatic cancer.

  213. 213.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 5:48 pm

    John Cole is a purple dragon wearing a yellow zip-up fleece?

    Well, a purple dragon who teaches at a university.

    Not just any purple dragon.

  214. 214.

    John S.

    September 1, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    Not just any purple dragon.

    Precisely.

    I mean, the Imagination ride closed down at EPCOT several years ago. John Cole has been teaching at a university for several years.

    Coincidence?

  215. 215.

    CaseyL

    September 1, 2006 at 6:25 pm

    John Cole is a purple dragon wearing a yellow zip-up fleece?

    OMG! John lives in my bedroom – on my dresser! And the plush white kitty next to him must be Tunch!

  216. 216.

    Tsulagi

    September 1, 2006 at 6:25 pm

    In one sense you have to see the dark humor and laugh at the relationship between the beyond-measure brain-dead retardocons and Chalabi. When Cheney and his PNAC choir boys came to power, they restored Chalabi’s funding which had been cut off by the State Dept. and CIA as they knew he was a complete liar and crook as did evey western intelligence agency. But of course the choir doesn’t need facts, they know the truth.

    Chalabi supplied them with “defectors” who told them exactly what they wanted to hear about Saddam’s supposed WMDs. The going rate to the defector (friends and family of Chalabi) was about $1m and asylum here or another western country. The stupidcons even knew they were (actually we) paying for his $36,000 a month office in Tehran. I could go on, but one DIA agent said it pretty well:

    Patrick Lang, former director of the DIA’s Middle East branch, said he had been told by colleagues that Chalabi’s U.S.-funded program to provide information about weapons of mass destruction and insurgents was effectively an Iranian intelligence operation. “They (the Iranians) knew exactly what we were up to,” he said.

    He described it as “one of the most sophisticated and successful intelligence operations in history.” “I’m a spook. I appreciate good work. This was good work,” he said.

    So there you have it. To sum up, these guys are too stupid to know they’re being fucked in the ass by a slimey crook, and they even paid for the privilege. Who in their right mind would trust these guys with national security? Only the lobotomized.

  217. 217.

    The Other Steve

    September 1, 2006 at 6:27 pm

    Does Darrell still need his pacifier?

    Whaaaa.

  218. 218.

    Pooh

    September 1, 2006 at 7:01 pm

    I tried to reason with you all, I really did…

  219. 219.

    RonB

    September 1, 2006 at 7:01 pm

    It bothers me how the left tries to dismiss ALL possibility of military action, when their only proposed alternative to military action is diplomacy

    OK, Darrell, fair enough, does it bother you that the right always tries to dismiss all possibility of diplomacy, when their only proposed alternative to diplomacy is military action? I’d settle for a fair mix between the two one of these days.

  220. 220.

    chriskoz

    September 1, 2006 at 7:04 pm

    What I responded to was your definitive statement that creating a democracy in Iraq was ‘not on the list’, when it most certainly was. You’re moving goalposts now.

    I think you should go back and re-read everything I wrote. I NEVER said it was not on the list. And I acknowledged that there was a “list of reasons”. But, what I said repeatedly, was that it was NOT one of main the reasons “pushed” by the administration. I am not moving the goal posts.

    Do you agree that it’s a good thing that Saddam and Sons were removed from power?

    For that rather simplified question… yes, I agree. Now… let’s address the REAL question. Do I agree that the Iraq war was a good thing (or the right thing) because it removed Saddam and sons from power? My answer to that is… hell no! I do not believe that the ends justify the means. Nor do I believe it was the US’s job to do it. (Full disclosure: I am one of those who was never convinced Iraq had WMD)

  221. 221.

    demimondian

    September 1, 2006 at 7:07 pm

    John lives in my bedroom – on my dresser!

    Too much information…too much information…

  222. 222.

    Zifnab

    September 1, 2006 at 7:19 pm

    Is it me, or in that picture is John not wearing any pants?

  223. 223.

    Zifnab

    September 1, 2006 at 7:37 pm

    For that rather simplified question… yes, I agree. Now… let’s address the REAL question. Do I agree that the Iraq war was a good thing (or the right thing) because it removed Saddam and sons from power? My answer to that is… hell no! I do not believe that the ends justify the means. Nor do I believe it was the US’s job to do it. (Full disclosure: I am one of those who was never convinced Iraq had WMD)

    So here’s a question: What happens if the war had been executed competantly? Let’s assume this wasn’t Donald “Special Forces Solve Everything” Rumsfield, but a real military leader like Eisenhower or MacArthur and we’d gone in the right way. Let’s assume for one imaginary moment that we played it smart, maintained stability in the region, and installed a pro-Western Democracy on par with Jordan or Turkey.

    Would you approve of the war then?

    Personally, I’m kinda torn on that question. Saddam was a ruthless dictator. Iraq did have an oppressed majority. The gassing of the Kurds back in the 80s was no better than Milosovich’s Albanian massacres.

    At the same time, America – from a moral perspective – shouldn’t be sticking its military ass in other people’s political business. If Iraq really wanted Saddam out, they’d have done then what they are doing now. Saddam got into power via violent Revolution, he could just as easily have been kicked out the same way. And even if the price tag of Iraqi freedom was only $100 billio rather than the staggering $1 trillion projection, does the US have the right to spend your money and mine on pre-emptive invasions purely for the sake of installing Democracy? We don’t run around giving Constitutional rights to Mexicans. We don’t limit the Presidential authority to wiretap two people outside the United States. If not for the Geneva Convensions, we’d be perfectly free to drag enemy combatants through the streets on fish-hooks if we felt like it. So why are Americans suddenly so interested in spreading the institutions of Democracy around the world if we don’t seem overly eager to spread its foundations?

    I think that’s a more interesting question.

  224. 224.

    Zifnab

    September 1, 2006 at 7:38 pm

    *Note: I suppose Jordan or Turkey would be bad examples of Pro-Western Democracies so replace that with any Middle Eastern countries that do have Pro-Western Democracies because I’m too lazy to look that up.

  225. 225.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 7:49 pm

    Let’s assume for one imaginary moment that we played it smart, maintained stability in the region, and installed a pro-Western Democracy on par with Jordan or Turkey.

    Let yourself off the hook. There are not considered to be any liberal democracies in the Arab world. Jordan doesn’t qualify, and Turkey is not an Arab country.

    According to those who study and catalogue these things, there is no history of stable liberal democracy in the Arab world. No example.

    The excellent summary at cia.gov lists Jordan as a “constitutional monarchy.”

  226. 226.

    jg

    September 1, 2006 at 7:59 pm

    The excellent summary at cia.gov lists Jordan as a “constitutional monarchy.”

    But the queen’s hot so we like them.

  227. 227.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 8:04 pm

    But the queen’s hot so we like them.

    Good point.

  228. 228.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 8:17 pm

    Some say (ahem) that Yemen might be the first example of stable liberal democracy in the Arab world. The question might hinge on the length of time necessary to adequately demonstrate stability, or whether it will be shown that the country can go through a couple of regime changes without any problems. So far it has had only one president.

    So at this point I think we can say that Yemen is on a bubble in this regard. Certainly worth watching.

    This might give you an idea of where they are now in the process of growing up.

  229. 229.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 8:47 pm

    Verdict is in. Joe Wilson really is a lying sack of shit, as was evident early on from the time the Senate intelligence committee findings became public. But you leftist morons were true believers, facts be damned. All your Fitzmas bullshit, your extreme obsessions, your whackjob conspiracy theories – it’s all been proven to be bullshit. You were wrong again because you’re a bunch of hateful aholes who ignored facts in order to cling to your delusional extremist fantasies. You won’t hear the lefties acknowledge how wrong they were after obsessing over Plame non stop for months on end. We’ll call the end of this sorry episode ‘White Phosphorous II’ for the left.

    It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House — that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson — is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage’s identity been known three years ago.

    ..Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming — falsely, as it turned out — that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush’s closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It’s unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

    Lying sack of shit, whose lies were swallowed hook, line and sinker by the stupidest of the stupid. How proud you liberals must be. I’m sure you’ll all move forward without any acknowledgent of your unbelievably poor judgement, and without any self examination about how your closed minded Bush hatred obsessions blinded you to any objective evaluation of the situation. ‘Reality based’ community my ass.

  230. 230.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 8:56 pm

    Uh, just one little problem, Darrell: The article is dead wrong. Wilson had a right to expose the government’s lie, without expecting that they’d stoop to trashing his wife to get back at him.

    Wilson not only had a right to expose what he believed was a government lie, he had a duty to do so. His agenda was to discredit a government that lied to get us into a war. Just a little more important than “why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission.” Do you think that wars and foreign policy should be reduced the level of high school gossip? If you do, then you and Robert Novak are the same kind of filth.

    But of course, Wilson didn’t know how completely corrupt the government really was then. We all know now. That’s why nobody listens when the assholes go out to Utah and make their lying speeches today.

  231. 231.

    rbl

    September 1, 2006 at 9:28 pm

    One problem is that most people aren’t too familiar with the NPT. It is perfectly clear that Iran has the right to enrich Uranium. HEU has legitimate uses, as was pointed out earlier. From a purely legal perspective, the US is probablly in greater violation of the NPT for continuing to maintain and develop nukes, and for not assisting Iran in its drive for nuclear technology.
    Iran can legally leave the treaty, giving a sufficient reason and 3 months notice. The US policy of regime change and the support for terrorists in Northern Iran might suffice as “extrardanary events” threatening their “supreme interests.” Certainly an airstrike would provide legal justification.

    While I don’t want Tehran having nukes, they have had chemical weapons for a number of years, and not launched or given them to Hezbulla yet.
    Regardless of their President’s idiotic rhetoric, Iran is generaly a fairly pragmatic actor. In the 80’s Iran was more than happy to buy weapons directly from big and little satan, and has gotten more moderate since then. Furthermore, the country is rather corrupt, implying that the rulers are enjoying their station, and not eager for personal martyrdom.

  232. 232.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 9:40 pm

    Furthermore, the country is rather corrupt, implying that the rulers are enjoying their station, and not eager for personal martyrdom.

    Not unlike what Iraq was, then.

  233. 233.

    Tsulagi

    September 1, 2006 at 9:57 pm

    Verdict is in. Blah,blah, blah…

    These guys never fail to crack me up. STOP THE PLANET-THE VERDICT IS IN!
    LOL.

    So this is jackalope country, huh? Ummm…you missed one thing, sport. That was an editorial. As in opinion piece. As in what ONE person chooses to believe. Verdict? Pretty low threshold isn’t that?

    Hey, here’s one: Verdict is in! It has been baffling as to why President Bush has been such a willing, complete tool for Iran. The reason is now known. After years of kissing Arab Saudi royalty on the lips, it has been learned that the president yearns now for Persian. He is hoping the Iranian president will be grateful for Iraq. Bush thinks he’s hot.

    Let me see, where’s that link to prove this verdict is in? It’s around here someplace.

  234. 234.

    rbl

    September 1, 2006 at 10:02 pm

    Not unlike what Iraq was, then.

    Nowhere near as evil of a regime, and much more secure in themselves. The Mullahs were happy to send 100’s of thousands of teenagers to die in human wave attacks, of course, and they would likely do so again, if neccessary, but if they wanted to pick a fight, they’d launch some of thier considerable ballistic missile arsenal at one of the many nearby infidel nations.
    But really, they have US troops of both sides of them, the US supporting terrorists/freedom fighters in their country, and a stated US policy of regime change. Any rational actor would want nukes.

  235. 235.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 10:11 pm

    Nowhere near as evil of a regime

    Maybe. But my blurb was in reference only to your blurb as I blockquoted it. I wasn’t making a general comparison between the regimes.

    It’s a minor point, AFAIC. So back to the jackalope invasion ….

  236. 236.

    rbl

    September 1, 2006 at 10:28 pm

    Thyme,
    I know what you mean, I’m just thinking that the human-rights “justification” is going to be harder to pull off.

  237. 237.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 10:31 pm

    Lying sack of shit, whose lies were swallowed hook, line and sinker by the stupidest of the stupid.

    Wait, I’ve lost track–are we talking about Iraq, Iran, Bush, Darrell, or The Washington Post Editorial Board?

    Also, how the hell can anyone honestly write an entire editorial about Plamegate, mentioning Novak, and not mention Karl Rove? (Or, for that matter, the INR memo, the leaked NIE, the CIA’s opinions on the matter, etc., etc., etc.) Or do I have to ask?

  238. 238.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 10:31 pm

    Verdict is in.

    “Verdict is in” in Darrellspeak is taken to mean “I found cover for the opinion I already held.”

    Darrell will gladly supply this kind of cover for any hideous idea of his. “Most people would say” is enough for him to cover crass bigotry. “According to what I’ve read” is his idea of footnotes.

    A lot of the time, he’ll just spout forth some factoid with no cover at all and leave it to you to find the facts. If your facts refute his spuds, he will disappear faster than a fart in hurricane. But if he can find even one anecdotal reference that can be remotely taken to support his claim, he’ll hump it like a dog on your girlfriend’s leg.

  239. 239.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 10:32 pm

    I’m just thinking that the human-rights “justification” is going to be harder to pull off.

    I agree.

  240. 240.

    ThymeZone

    September 1, 2006 at 11:11 pm

    Why the US is Holding Its Fire On Iran

    Time Magazine, current issue.

  241. 241.

    aaron

    September 1, 2006 at 11:12 pm

    From the report:

    D.2. Uranium Metal

    14. The Agency is carrying out investigations on information and documentation which may have been provided to Iran by foreign intermediaries (GOV/2006/27, paras 15–16; GOV/2006/38, para. 7).
    To understand the full scope of the offers made by the intermediaries to Iran, it is still necessary for the Agency to have a copy of the 15-page document describing the procedures for the reduction of UF6 to uranium metal and the casting and machining of enriched and depleted uranium metal into hemispheres (first mentioned in GOV/2005/87, para. 6). Iran continued to decline the Agency’s request to have a copy of the document, but had agreed to allow the Agency to review the document, to take notes from it and to keep it under seal in Iran. In the course of a visit to Iran in mid-August 2006, Agency inspectors continued their examination of the document. However, Iran informed the inspectors that the taking of notes would not be permitted, and the notes which had been taken thus far by the inspectors during that visit had to be destroyed. The document remains under seal in Iran.

    Uranium hemispheres have one known use.

    Responses distilled from the commenters here:

    –There’s no proof Iran is trying to build nuclear bombs.

    –It’s okay anyway if Iran has nuclear bombs. Why worry?

    –Amerikkka is the main threat in the world anyway.

    –Can we change the subject?

  242. 242.

    DougJ

    September 1, 2006 at 11:23 pm

    I realize this is hyptothetical, but imagine if there were a country that, like Iran, had strong Islamic fundamentalist tendencies and that, unlike Iran, was also harboring Osama bin Laden as well as various former members of the Talibain. And imagine that this country had nuclear bombs. And that they sold nuclear tehcnology to other countries.

    Pretty scary, huh? Thank God Pakistan exists only in my imagination.

  243. 243.

    DougJ

    September 1, 2006 at 11:30 pm

    while openly attempting to hasten the appearance of the next Islamic messiah (12th iman) like the nutjobs in Iran.

    What can we do to stop that? The next Islamic Messiah could do a lot of damage, probably more than a nuclear bomb could. We can’t just sit there and let the next Islamic Messiah reappear.

    Could we at least try to make lemonade out of lemons here by having a show “America’s Next Islamic Messiah.” You take a bunch of fundamentalist whack jobs, stick them in a house (or a mosque), and have them compete at prayer, Koran memorization, and the like. Each week a panel of Mullahs decides who’s going to be kicked out of the house/mosque.

  244. 244.

    John S.

    September 1, 2006 at 11:33 pm

    Verdict is in.

    Yes, the verdict is in.

    Up to his neck in bullshit about Iran and Iraq, Darrell brings up the topic of… Joe Wilson?

    Segue. Smooth. Subtle.

  245. 245.

    Pb

    September 1, 2006 at 11:36 pm

    Could we at least try to make lemonade out of lemons here by having a show “America’s Next Islamic Messiah.”

    The worst thing about this is the copycat shows. Five minutes later, Fox would be airing “Holy Shi’ite”, or “Arab-Israeli Wife Swap“, or something.

  246. 246.

    DougJ

    September 1, 2006 at 11:51 pm

    Obviously, conventional weapons are not going to take out the Next Messiah. But what about tactical nukes? If this guy’s really the Messiah, we need to fight Him over there. What if he sneaks in through one of our ports. That guy could cause serious damage in one our major cities.

  247. 247.

    Darrell

    September 1, 2006 at 11:57 pm

    Delusions of leftists fucktards:

    ThymeZone Says:

    Uh, just one little problem, Darrell: The article is dead wrong. Wilson had a right to expose the government’s lie, without expecting that they’d stoop to trashing his wife to get back at him.

    Reality:

    Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming—falsely, as it turned out—that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.

  248. 248.

    CaseyL

    September 2, 2006 at 12:03 am

    “We need to fight the Messiah over there so he doesn’t preach the Word over here!”

    It’s too bad I don’t believe in any of that. Because the thought of Jesus coming back and seeing what’s been done to his philosophy of kindness and simplicity – what he’d have to say about it, and who he’d be saying it to – makes me smile.

  249. 249.

    jaime

    September 2, 2006 at 12:32 am

    that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.

    Yes. As has become evident, Iraq is awash in Nigerian yellow cake. Joe Wilson was dead wrong.

  250. 250.

    Pb

    September 2, 2006 at 12:49 am

    It’s sad to see Darrell so desperately clinging to Fred Hiatt’s personal (and partisan) opinions as reality when in fact his statements grossly contradict the actual reporting that has been done by The Washington Post.

    I mean, really, what could you honestly argue here–that Joe Wilson hadn’t “debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger”? Do they stand by the sixteen words, then? This is just nonsense, probably to attack distract further from the original point–that there was an organized campaign out of the White House to out a CIA operative who was currently working on tracking Iranian nuclear proliferation.

    So don’t wonder in the coming months or years why we didn’t have better intelligence on Iran… now you know.

    And while we’re at it, one detail the Washington Post did previously get wrong:

    The intelligence report also said that Nicter’s former Minister for Energy and Mines ( ), Mai Manga, stated that there were no sales outside of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) channels since the mid-1980s. He knew of no contracts signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of uranium. He said that an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998, but said that no contract was ever signed with Iran.

    That’s right, Iran.

  251. 251.

    Pb

    September 2, 2006 at 12:57 am

    jaime,

    Well, really, Iraq already had enough yellowcake lying around:

    The material at this facility includes approximately 500 metric tons of safeguarded uranium and several non-fissile radioisotope sources that are not under IAEA safeguards. The uranium is mostly in the form of yellow cake, an isotopically natural form that is an impure oxide. There is a small quantity of low-enriched and depleted uranium.
    […]
    When the U.S. forces first arrived, they found the Tuwaitha site facility, Tuwaitha Charlie facility, in disarray. The front gate was open and unsecured, and the fence line and barrier wall on the back side of the facility had been breached. And the troops reported that there were no seals on the exterior doors of the buildings.
    […]
    On the 18th of May, a direct support team teamed up with the Coalition Provisional Authority personnel and some additional people from IAEC, the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission, and they decided to conduct a buy-back operation because the troops were starting to hear stories that some of the barrels — there were barrels in the local community that resembled those that were at the site. The team went to two villages and offered to pay $3 a piece for any items that may have come from the facility, and they pointed out what these items might look like. The team recovered over 100 barrels of various sizes and shapes and condition, as well as five radioactive sources and some other items. But virtually none of the people admitted to having taken the items from the facility. They said they had bought them. And indeed, barrels like these are ubiquitous around Iraq.
    […]
    the site had apparently been looted before U.S. soldiers arrived. Uranium materials and some other stored materials had been dumped on the floor in places, and in one building, there were a number of radiological sources scattered around the floor.

  252. 252.

    Andrew

    September 2, 2006 at 1:02 am

    I posit that Darrell is Fred Hiatt.

    That would explain both Darrell’s BJ posts and the limited intellectual reach of Washington Post editorials.

    Occam’s Razor, bitches.

  253. 253.

    Pb

    September 2, 2006 at 1:07 am

    Andrew,

    I think you’ve got something there, as it would also perfectly explain why Darrell thinks that Fred Hiatt’s opinion is actually reality.

  254. 254.

    Andrew

    September 2, 2006 at 1:31 am

    Just in: Lee Siegel is a dickwad columnist with a penchant for posting pseudonymous blog comments glorifying his own shitbag writing.

    Sound like any Senators that we know?

  255. 255.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 10:08 am

    DougJ Says:

    Obviously, conventional weapons are not going to take out the Next Messiah. But what about tactical nukes? If this guy’s really the Messiah, we need to fight Him over there. What if he sneaks in through one of our ports

    Now that is funny. Good snark is funniest in moderation.

  256. 256.

    Zifnab

    September 2, 2006 at 10:19 am

    Just in: Lee Siegel is a dickwad columnist with a penchant for posting pseudonymous blog comments glorifying his own shitbag writing.

    Sound like any Senators that we know?

    Haha. Did you pick that up off of Kos? My personal favorite was the quote at the end.

    How angry people get when a powerful critic says he doesn’t like their favorite show! Like little babies. Such fragile egos. Siegel accuses Stewart of a “pandering puerility” and he gets an onslaught of puerile responses from the insecure herd of independent minds. I’m well within Stewart’s target group, and I think he’s about as funny as a wet towel in a locker room. Siegel is brave, brilliant, and wittier than Stewart will ever be. Take that, you bunch of immature, abusive sheep.
    ~Lee Siegal/sprezzatura/Batman

  257. 257.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 10:28 am

    Pb Says:

    It’s sad to see Darrell so desperately clinging to Fred Hiatt’s personal (and partisan) opinions as reality when in fact his statements grossly contradict the actual reporting that has been done by The Washington Post.

    Hiatt is a liberal who runs a liberal editorial page. It is undisputed fact now that it was Richard Armitage who unintentionally leaked Plame’s identity, a ‘not a partisan gunslinger’, precisely as Novak had described him. An opponent of the Bush administrations policies in Iraq.

    As I predicted, liberals are too emotionally invested to admit the truth, because most of you really and truly are DISHONEST TO THE CORE. This sorry trumped-up-by-the-left conspiracy theory, like White Phosphorous, like Rather’s ‘fake but accurate’ memo were all rooted in lies and bullshit. And the left, as is their character, is again too dishonest to admit the truth.

  258. 258.

    Andrew

    September 2, 2006 at 10:33 am

    Hiatt is a liberal who runs a liberal editorial page.

    He’s also a Nazi, because liberals are Nazis, or vice versa or something.

  259. 259.

    Andrew

    September 2, 2006 at 10:35 am

    He’s also a Nazi, because liberals are Nazis, or vice versa or something.

    You’re a fraud, and a liar. And a wincingly pretentious writer. You couldn’t tie Darrell’s shoelaces.
    — sprezzAndrew

  260. 260.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 10:37 am

    Andrew Says:

    Hiatt is a liberal who runs a liberal editorial page.

    He’s also a Nazi, because liberals are Nazis, or vice versa or something.

    Liberals will hide in their snark and ridicule this and that.. anything to avoid admitting the truth. Liberals pushed hard another story rooted in lies, willfully ignoring all facts that didn’t fit with their narrative. Now when truth is out for all to see, liberals move on without admitting how wrong they were. That is the true character of the ‘reality based’ community.

  261. 261.

    Zifnab

    September 2, 2006 at 10:51 am

    What the hell kinda name is spezzatura anyway? Did he just slap his keyboard or type it up in a drunken fit or what? Seriously. I remember 8-year-olds who played Counter Strike that could come up with a better handle than that.

  262. 262.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 10:54 am

    Is Joe Wilson still invited to next year’s annual DKos event? Does Wilson still have a celebrity DKos diary? Are liberals demanding that Richard Armitage be ‘frog marched’? Will liberals continue to buy Wilson’s ‘courageous’ book? Does this mean that there really wasn’t a “campaign to discredit” Joe Wilson?

    Given the hysterics of the left over ‘Plamegate’, now that it turns out to all be based on lies, liberals will just pretend it never happened. No apologies, no admitting the truth, no self examination over how their obsessive Bush hatred caused them to ignore all contrary facts and evidence.

  263. 263.

    The Other Steve

    September 2, 2006 at 11:05 am

    Darrell is a prime example of why Republicans cannot be trusted with national security, and why they cannot be trusted with governmental responsibility.

    He really is a lying piece of shit moral coward.

  264. 264.

    The Other Steve

    September 2, 2006 at 11:21 am

    Darrell’s idea of keeping us safe… Arrest insane people as terrorists

  265. 265.

    Llelldorin

    September 2, 2006 at 11:32 am

    Darrell, your only post so far that actually contained an idea (September 1st, 2006 at 12:56 pm) wasn’t really a workable plan. It would have been, pre-Iraq, but now isn’t unless you also have a plan to handle retaliatory strikes by Iran.

    Were we not in Iran, your plan might make some sense–indeed, it was the standard Clinton-era response to such threats. Now, though, we have more than a hundred thousand troops that Iran could attack or cut off in retaliation. Becuase Iraq’s in the throes of incipient civil war, their feet are glued to the ground–we can’t actually use them against Iran, and we can’t supply them without ground-based supply lines that run right through Shiia areas of Iraq, and which are very vulnerable to Iranian strikes.

    You’e given what’s really the typical Republican response these days. Your precious administration has painted the United States into a corner through the single most wrongheaded foreign policy of at least the last thirty years, so you rail at Democrats for not having a plan to bail you out. If we weren’t in Iraq, I could give you a plan, and it’d be the one you suggested. From here? Figure out a way to wind down Iraq, then we might have some options. But you won’t do that, because it’d be “cutting and running.” Enlarge the military, reinstate the draft, and raise taxes to actually pay for all these military adventures, and we might (and I really mean might) be able to brass it out. You won’t propose that, becuase you’d be hounded from office.

    So, given your absurd set of constraints, what are you planning to do, exactly? Because you’re a Republican, you’ll probably carry out the plan you suggested, completely ignoring the troops in Iraq. Then, when Iran retaliates, you’ll just keep escalating, hoping to run out the clock. All you have to do is keep all your balls in the air until January of 2009, of course, and you can blame the ensuing catastrophe on whichever Democrat replaces Bush.

    That’s SOP for the GOP.

  266. 266.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 11:39 am

    It would have been, pre-Iraq, but now isn’t unless you also have a plan to handle retaliatory strikes by Iran.

    It “isn’t now” because you say so? We could launch missile strikes like these on 20+ countries simultaneously if we had to. What the hell are you talking about, not “workable”?

  267. 267.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 11:42 am

    Figure out a way to wind down Iraq, then we might have some options. But you won’t do that, because it’d be “cutting and running.”

    Well, given the outcome last time we “cut and ran” in that region.. resulting in a Taliban/Al Queda run government. I’d say your position is not very ‘reality based’

  268. 268.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 11:53 am

    Hiatt is a liberal who runs a liberal editorial page.

    Nice try, Darrell, Fred Hiatt has been carrying water for the Bush administration for a while now. You are correct, however, that Richard Armitage is not exactly what you would call a neocon, he was aligned with Powell in terms of how military might should be projected.

    I have always held out the possibility that the Plame name was a monumental accident that in itself needed covering. But even as Hiatt admits, Cheney and Libby were definitely interested in the idea of discrediting Joe Wilson with that information. It’s still very sleazy, even if it is not illegal. And it was used to cover up a whopper that wound up in the State of the Union.

    Well, given the outcome last time we “cut and ran” in that region.. resulting in a Taliban/Al Queda run government. I’d say your position is not very ‘reality based’

    Could you explain what you are talking about here?

  269. 269.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 11:56 am

    It’s still very sleazy, even if it is not illegal

    Sleazy = countering lies spread by Joe Wilson and his leftist followers with actual facts. Tell us Ron, what was the “whopper” in the SOTU you refer to? I’d like to see how far out there you really are.

  270. 270.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 11:58 am

    Could you explain what you are talking about here?

    We supplied arms and military ‘advisors’ to Afghanistan in the 1980’s to help them fight the Soviets. After the Soviets withdrew, we abruptly ‘cut and ran’ from Afghanistan leaving an unstable government behind. An unstable govt. which was later taken control of by the Taliban/Al Queda.

  271. 271.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 12:00 pm

    You going to answer my question while I answer yours?

    Actual facts? By floating the idea that his wife sent him on vacation? That intel was shakier than hell and turned out to be nonsense from a guy we tortured.

  272. 272.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 12:02 pm

    By floating the idea that his wife sent him on vacation?

    The Senate intelligence committee concluded that his wife did indeed ‘float’ Wilson’s name. That is a fact.

  273. 273.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 12:03 pm

    Darrell, we were not in Afghanistan to do anything but fuck up the Soviet occupation. I don’t see how that qualifies as cutting and running.

  274. 274.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 12:05 pm

    I don’t see how that qualifies as cutting and running.

    We left behind a partially destroyed unstable government. In hindsight, that was a clear mistake that we don’t want to repeat.

  275. 275.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 12:05 pm

    But characterizing the trip as a mere “junket” is wrong. Wilson had experience and sources in the region.

  276. 276.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 12:10 pm

    We left behind a partially destroyed unstable government. In hindsight, that was a clear mistake that we don’t want to repeat.

    It was never our intent to “fix” Afghanistan in the first place so cutting and running from and objective that didn’t exist is a inapt way to describe our departure from Afghanistan, which was nothing but a covert operation anyway. I’m sorry, but you’re going too far with the “cut and run” thing.

    I suppose you think the Afghans would have been just peachy with the idea of us sending a ton of troops in? Why?

  277. 277.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 12:10 pm

    But characterizing the trip as a mere “junket” is wrong.

    Ron, what was really wrong, was Joe Wilson writing a flamethrowing NY Times editorial full of lies, including the lie that his wife “had nothing to do” with the Niger trip. He lied his ass off and you defend him. That doesn’t reflect well on your character, does it? I’ll ask you again, what was the “whopper” of a lie in the SOTU that you previously referred to?

  278. 278.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 12:13 pm

    I’m sorry, but you’re going too far with the “cut and run” thing.

    Ron, other than a few extremists like yourself, there is virtually unanimous agreement that ‘cutting and running’ in Afghanistan after Soviet withdrawal was a mistake. It’s tiring to argue well established points which really aren’t controversial in the least.

  279. 279.

    The Other Steve

    September 2, 2006 at 12:16 pm

    Did you see Rumsfeld sent a letter to Democrats whining about how the news media mischarecterized his comments in Salt Lake City?

    Apparently he believes Democrats are too stupid to listen to his speech themselves, and they have to be told what he really meant.

  280. 280.

    The Other Steve

    September 2, 2006 at 12:18 pm

    Ron, other than a few extremists like yourself, there is virtually unanimous agreement that ‘cutting and running’ in Afghanistan after Soviet withdrawal was a mistake. It’s tiring to argue well established points which really aren’t controversial in the least.

    Darrell is seriously arguing that after the Afghanistanis ousted the Russian troops that the United States should have invaded with an occupation force because the Afgahnis were apparently too stupid to govern themselves.

    No… he’s not just saying we should have tried to help Afghanistan rebuild and provide aid money. He’s arguing we should have invaded and set our military up as the occupation authority.

    That’s what he’s saying folks.

    And you wonder why Republicans can’t be trusted on national security.

  281. 281.

    The Other Steve

    September 2, 2006 at 12:19 pm

    It was never our intent to “fix” Afghanistan in the first place so cutting and running from and objective that didn’t exist is a inapt way to describe our departure from Afghanistan, which was nothing but a covert operation anyway. I’m sorry, but you’re going too far with the “cut and run” thing.

    Give Darrell a break, will ya. Next to his fear of Cobra Commander, this cut and run thing is the only talking point he has to work with.

    :-)

  282. 282.

    The Other Steve

    September 2, 2006 at 12:20 pm

    Now I must go and paint the unfinished bathroom in the basement which I use as a closet.

    I have chosen Light French Grey. That’s right! French grey! Because American Grey ain’t good enough for my unfinished bathroom closet!

  283. 283.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 12:30 pm

    Darrell, I’m not going to let you bait me into becoming irritable because you want to call me an extremist, or pooh-pooh my character. I’ve been fairly reasonable with you as of late, so why don’t we skip the namecalling, we both know what we think of each other.

    Ron, what was really wrong, was Joe Wilson writing a flamethrowing NY Times editorial full of lies, including the lie that his wife “had nothing to do” with the Niger trip.

    He said NOTHING about his wife in the editorial. What lies are you referring to…tell me what part of the editorial you find to be “lies”. What I see in the editorial was someone who reacted to a British allegation that he had already concluded was false and had been sent on a mission to find that out.

    Don’t be dense, we all know what part of the SOTU shouldn’t have been in there.

    Ron, other than a few extremists like yourself, there is virtually unanimous agreement that ‘cutting and running’ in Afghanistan after Soviet withdrawal was a mistake. It’s tiring to argue well established points which really aren’t controversial in the least.

    Did you hear me before? There was no cut and run in Afghanistan because there was no plan to cut and run for, so stop calling it that. If you think it would’ve been a good idea to get involved in an Afghan civil war, you’re entitled to that opinion, and I’ll even inquire about amongst whom there is “virtual unanimity” that we should have or would have been able to aqcuire Afghanistan as a protectorate. There are limits to what we can do. You, like most neocons( and please don’t take this as a pejorative, because that is what people who believe in the puissance and indomitability of American military power to change hot spots around the world) have not learned that yet. Fortunately, this strain of thought has finally reached its decline stage, and your ideology will once again be pushed to the fringe where it came from.

  284. 284.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    oops, add the word “are” after world above.

  285. 285.

    Andrew

    September 2, 2006 at 12:37 pm

    Wait, I thought that the cutting and running was when Reagan pulled out of Beirut?

  286. 286.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 12:37 pm

    “Valerie had nothing to do with the matter,”

    Source

  287. 287.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 12:39 pm

    Andrew Says:

    Wait, I thought that the cutting and running was when Reagan pulled out of Beirut?

    I’ll agree with that. Probably the most shameful episode of Reagan’s presidency.

  288. 288.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 12:41 pm

    If you think it would’ve been a good idea to get involved in an Afghan civil war,

    Given that the outcome was a Taliban/Al Queda govt responsible for planning and executing 9/11 attacks and others, I’d say it’s pretty clear to all but the most extreme that ‘cutting and running’ from Afghanistan at that time was, in hindsight, a very bad move on our part. Incredible that you find that position so ‘controversial’

  289. 289.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 12:50 pm

    Gee, thanks, Darrell, but you said the op-ed had that information in it. I find it a little off the wall that Wilson would contend that his wife had nothing to do with the trip. What I see here is that Joe Wilson has done a swell job discrediting himself in certain circumstances, but that doesn’t make his trip invalid.

  290. 290.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 12:51 pm

    Don’t be dense, we all know what part of the SOTU shouldn’t have been in there.

    I’ll try not to be so dense, if you try to stop being so coy. Again, what was the “whopper” of a lie in the SOTU speech which you referred to? If you can’t answer specifically, then quit pretending that you are looking for an honest debate.

  291. 291.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 12:55 pm

    Given that the outcome was a Taliban/Al Queda govt responsible for planning and executing 9/11 attacks and others, I’d say it’s pretty clear to all but the most extreme that ‘cutting and running’ from Afghanistan at that time was, in hindsight, a very bad move on our part. Incredible that you find that position so ‘controversial’

    I don’t believe this. You’re actually arguing that a conclusion that could only be reached in hindsight can be construed as a “mistake”, and you’re also arguing that a mission that didn’t exist is a “cut and run”.

    You’re impossible, pal. Even if you had any good points, I’d be tempted to dismiss them out of hand because of bizarritude like this.

  292. 292.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 12:57 pm

    Huh? How am I being coy when we both know what I’m talking about? Do I have to sit here and type the sixteen words, or what? What is your problem? Get to your point.

  293. 293.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 1:00 pm

    Y’all forgive me for being so dense myself. I think it has finally occurred to me that I am debating a fucking spoof. God, I suck.

    Dude, whoever you are, you’re good.

  294. 294.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 1:00 pm

    I find it a little off the wall that Wilson would contend that his wife had nothing to do with the trip

    Joe Wilson and his wife deliberately set up this trip for the purpose of discrediting the Bush administration. Wilson lied his ass off by leaking disinformation, then again in his NY Times editorial and book. That you and other liberals are not embarrassed about believing and pushing these lies says it all about your character.

  295. 295.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 1:06 pm

    Joe Wilson and his wife deliberately set up this trip for the purpose of discrediting the Bush administration

    Why?

    Wilson lied his ass off by leaking disinformation

    Leaking?

    This should be good. May the lord forgive me for indulging it.

  296. 296.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 1:07 pm

    You’re actually arguing that a conclusion that could only be reached in hindsight can be construed as a “mistake”

    Yes, that is exactly what I have argued. Here are my exact words:

    In hindsight, that was a clear mistake that we don’t want to repeat.

  297. 297.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 1:09 pm

    Leaking?

    Yes, Wilson leaked disinformation anonymously. That you continue to defend him says it all about your character.

  298. 298.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 2, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    Darrell-

    The best you can do is a column bu Sue ‘Steno’ Schmidt?

    The point is not, and never has been, who sent Wilson on the trip.

    The point is what he found (no credible support for the claim that Hussain had succeeded, pr even made a serious effort, in getting yellowcake).The point is that the White House had his report, and additional reason to know that the documents they had gotten stating otherwise were fake.

    Who cares about Wilson, other than that he was right about what mattered? And that he offers proof that Bush lied in order to get political support for the invasion of Iraq?

  299. 299.

    Andrew

    September 2, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    Pajamas Media reports this breaking news:

    Subsequent to the publication of the NGIC report, PJM has learned the following. In early August on a patrol north of Baghdad, us soldiers made another startling and important discovery. Searching near an Iraqi construction site, the troops uncovered at least 240 chemical weapon shells. Although they had not been filled with any agents, they were still more remnants from Saddam’s WMD stockpiles.

    For those keeping score, this most recent discovery raises the total number of chemical weapons found in Iraq since 2003 to more than 700.

    What in the living fuck is wrong with these people?

    240 more chemical weapons! Except that they weren’t any chemicals!

    Why in gods name would anyone want to associate with such completely stupid fucktards?

  300. 300.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 2, 2006 at 1:13 pm

    C’mon guys, lets make Darrell work for that Netvocates paycheck!

  301. 301.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    The point is what he found (no credible support for the claim that Hussain had succeeded, pr even made a serious effort, in getting yellowcake).

    The Senate intelligence committee found that Iraqi representative contacted the government of Niger several times with regards to purchase of yellowcake. That lying sacks of shit like Tulkinghorn continue to peddle the lie that there was “no serious effort” on the part of Saddam’s govt to acquire yellowcake says it all. You lying scumbags have no shame, you really don’t.

  302. 302.

    CaseyL

    September 2, 2006 at 1:16 pm

    Joe Wilson and his wife deliberately set up this trip for the purpose of discrediting the Bush administration

    Joe Wilson was a Republican when the trip was set up; one who, moreover, had a deep respect and liking for Bush, Sr. (who also liked and respected Wilson). Joe Wilson went toe-to-toe with Saddam Hussein back when Bush Junior was still snorting coke in the White House: he certainly didn’t need Junior to tell him Saddam was a Bad Man.

    Valerie Plame was a 20-year plus career CIA agent. Whatever her party affiliation (and I have no idea what it was before 2003), she worked loyally and well during the Reagan and Bush I Administrations as well during the Clinton years.

    Plus, neither Joe or Valerie knew what Joe would find out in Niger.

    To say that these two people, with decades worth of unblemished public and intelligence service, who knew and liked Bush Senior, and who didn’t know what the trip to Niger would uncover, planned the whole thing to discredit Bush II is, frankly, insane.

    Darrell, if you actually believe what you wrote (as opposed to writing it just for grins and giggles) you need to see a doctor. Seriously.

  303. 303.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 2, 2006 at 1:18 pm

    The Senate intelligence committee concluded that several contacts (ie phone calls, letters, etc) was a serious effort?

    The same ‘intelligence committee’ that is run by dishonest, partisan GOP hacks?

    The same assholes that were as surely paid off and controlled as were Judy Miller and Sue Schmidt?

    Oh, That Senate Intelligence Committee! My bad.

  304. 304.

    ThymeZone

    September 2, 2006 at 1:19 pm

    Dude, whoever you are, you’re good.

    Well, you wouldn’t be the first to be taken in.

    I have long suspected, and said, that John Cole either writes this character, or has somebody do it for him.

    The character is totally without conscience or morals, totally without intellectual integrity, and generally bulltproof when it comes to criticism. The character never answers challenges to its assertions based on fact, and never explains itself.

    While we have no smoking gun evidence that the moniker is written by John or hired by John, there aren’t too many rational answers to the question, “Why would a legitimate blogger tolerate a Darrell on his blog?” It isn’t about freedom of speech, because the character abuses that every day. It can’t be that Cole doesn’t care, unless his rants to the contrary are phony (which they could be, of course).

    At the end of the day, since Cole chooses to be silent about it, I have to conclude that Occam’s Razor applies here, and that the Darrell character is here just to puff up the page views. Whether he works for John, is John, or just tolerated by John, that answer works and makes sense.

    Also keep in mind that John really doesn’t like liberals, even though he is one. His social views are at least as liberal as mine, maybe more so. So you can imagine that he’d write, promote or tolerate a Darrell just because he thinks it’s funny to get the churn going.

    My final argument: Look at the name of the blog. That tells you a lot.

  305. 305.

    Zifnab

    September 2, 2006 at 1:20 pm

    Joe Wilson and his wife deliberately set up this trip for the purpose of discrediting the Bush administration.

    You must be joking. Perhaps Joe and Valerie just have an unforseen amount of muscle within the CIA and a truly devious political agenda to topple the President. Or perhaps this is a national conspiracy of the CIA as a whole to bring down the President. But it looks suspiciously like Joe Wilson, who had made previous trips to Niger and had contacts within the country, was a perfectly valid candidate for deployment. That Valerie Plame, Joe’s wife, who also worked in the CIA, suggested Joe’s deployment. That the CIA director had final say on the mission. And that this mission was no more or less nefarious than every other CIA mission to date.

    Certainly, Joe Wilson was no Curveball. But then, who is?

  306. 306.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    To say that these two people, with decades worth of unblemished public and intelligence service, who knew and liked Bush Senior, and who didn’t know what the trip to Niger would uncover, planned the whole thing to discredit Bush II is, frankly, insane.

    From the Washington Post

    Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming—falsely, as it turned out—that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush’s closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy.

    Wilson is a proven liar. That you and so many others on the left continue to defend him demonstrate what lowlifes you truly are.

  307. 307.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    There. Was. No. Mission. To. Cut. And. Run. From. Therefore, there was no mistake.

    But fuck it, you’re going to continue to assert the same shit over and over again. But I do see your point. And look at how well “staying the course” is going. We’re really making progress, ain’t we? Iraq will be a stable democracy any day now.

    Like I said, Darrell, there are limits to what we can do. Thanks to your brand of interventionism, we now have given the fundies a new home.

  308. 308.

    Andrew

    September 2, 2006 at 1:26 pm

    Darrell is John Cole’s sprezzatura.

  309. 309.

    Zifnab

    September 2, 2006 at 1:28 pm

    Also keep in mind that John really doesn’t like liberals, even though he is one. His social views are at least as liberal as mine, maybe more so. So you can imagine that he’d write, promote or tolerate a Darrell just because he thinks it’s funny to get the churn going.

    Now you’re just being a conspiracy theorist. It’s equally likely that Darrell is just a Red State/LGF/Instapundit/Protein Wisdom-style hack who can’t shut up and loves trolling. And John doesn’t want to kick Darrell cause then a) he’s kicked one of maybe three pro-Bush supporters on his site, b) it breaks his “no kicking people” policy that he’s upheld universally through thick and thin, and c) because this site isn’t so foolproof Darrell can’t just make another nick and jump on again.

  310. 310.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 1:29 pm

    the Darrell character is here just to puff up the page views. Whether he works for John, is John, or just tolerated by John, that answer works and makes sense.

    I’d have to go with tolerating. Whatever the case may be, it does seem to work. You have to admit that without a spectacle like Darrell, the majority of posts would rarely break 100 comments.

  311. 311.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 1:29 pm

    Thanks to your brand of interventionism, we now have given the fundies a new home

    You lefties cling to your “fighting terrorists creates more terrorists” meme like a one year old clings to his blanket.

  312. 312.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 2, 2006 at 1:29 pm

    Darrell:

    If we stipulate for argument that Wilson is a liar, what is the material lie of any significance?

    Are you saying that he found proof that Saddam set up a supply of yellowcake, but that he lied about it? Or what?

    Rather, he was sent to check out certain claims, failed to find any support for them, and then went public when he heard Bush declare that proof had been found.

    The only lie of any significance is the one uttered, repeatedly and systematically, by Bush, his VP, their agents and cronies.

    OK, Wilson bullshitted about Cheney having arranged the trip. Big fucking deal. Does Wilson’s lie somehow make the Niger connection become a reality?

  313. 313.

    CaseyL

    September 2, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    Darrell, you’re insane.

    Cracked.

    Whacko.

    Nuttier than a jar of Planters.

    A few forks short of a place setting.

    A possible danger to yourself and to society.

    Get help. Soon.

  314. 314.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 1:33 pm

    Zif, that’s entirely possible, lord knows that right wing talk radio doesnt get its numbers from people who are laughing at it. It’s important to remember that there are people that stupid. Darrell is just a little more well versed in teh stupid than most.

  315. 315.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    You lefties cling to your “fighting terrorists creates more terrorists” meme like a one year old clings to his blanket.

    Boooo-ring. Bombing the shit out of a civilian populace and destabilizing a government is what creates more terrorists, you knucklehead.

  316. 316.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 2, 2006 at 1:35 pm

    Aha! It is a “meme”, which means Darrell wins the argument.

  317. 317.

    ThymeZone

    September 2, 2006 at 1:35 pm

    it breaks his “no kicking people” policy that he’s upheld universally through thick and thin,

    No, I disagree with your entire rebuttal, but especially this part. John makes a show of banning or threatening to ban on a regular basis (not as often as he used to, when he appeared to care more about the blog than he does now).

    Also, John regularly rebukes people … but he never rebukes Darrell. Never. I have seen him actually make a pass at something idiotic Darrell said exactly once, and that was a year and half ago.

    Darrell makes sense only in one way, and that is that page views are the priority here.

    Nobody would start a political blog and agree in advance to put up with the kind of shit Darrell pulls here. No matter which side one is on, the lies and the refusal to take responsibility are things that aren’t rationally tolerated anywhere, for good reason. It turns any thread instantly into an ongoing verbal wedgie for anyone who wants to participate. Not even the simplest, most basic facts can be agreed on when Darrell is around. There is no basis for anything. It’s just all Darrell. He reduces every exchange to its lowest common denominator.

    If you are right, which I seriously doubt, then the best I can say for Cole is that be is a damned fool.

  318. 318.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 1:37 pm

    If we stipulate for argument that Wilson is a liar, what is the material lie of any significance?

    If you were more honest, you would acknowledge the material lie which the WP article focuses upon

    Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming—falsely, as it turned out—that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger

    A deliberate lie. You and virtually every other liberals embraced him. John Kerry made him part of his campaign, but now Wilson has been proven to be a lying sack of shit and the left still defends him. Why? Because you all are dishonest to the core. You really are.

  319. 319.

    VidaLoca

    September 2, 2006 at 1:38 pm

    Darrell,

    Given that the outcome was a Taliban/Al Queda govt responsible for planning and executing 9/11 attacks and others, I’d say it’s pretty clear to all but the most extreme that ‘cutting and running’ from Afghanistan at that time was, in hindsight, a very bad move on our part.

    The government that became the Taliban was not even the worst side effect of the way the US carried out its intervention there. The infiltration of arms and guerrillas that the CIA organized was carried out through Pakistan, with the active cooperation of the Pakistani govt. In return for that cooperation we turned a blind eye toward the development by AQ Khan of the Pakistani nuclear program. The rest, as they say, is history.

    It’s worth remembering though that our involvement there during the Soviet occupation (1979-89) was justified by the operating logic of the Cold War — anything done to damage the Soviets was within reason, particularly as the US was celebrating the hope that the Soviets could have an experience equal to the one we had just finished in Vietnam.
    In this we succeeded, as a reading of some of the memoirs of the Soviet troops who served there will attest. The set of consequences that you’re referring to (as support of “bad move on our part”) weren’t apparent until much later.

    In fact, there was a non-Taliban government under Najibullah that held power until 1992. Najibullah was, however, a Soviet client and former head of the secret police, it’s not realistic to think that support of him would be a priority of US foreign policy. Nor was it a priority of the Soviets; as the Afghan economy declined Najibullah’s support fell as well. He was replaced in 1992 by factions of the mujahedeen — the forces we had armed and helped to organize over the previous decade.

    However, the mujahedeen won the ability to rule by being better armed and better organized than the Soviet Army — just as their fathers had won the ability to rule by being better armed and better organized the world’s premier military power of their day, the Brits. It’s not for nothing that Afganistan is called the “graveyard of empires” . And, the muj had only just finished a role as our allies in their war for independence.

    Based on all of that — exactly how would the opposite of “cutting and running” have worked, and how would it have been sold to the public?

  320. 320.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 1:39 pm

    Bombing the shit out of a civilian populace and destabilizing a government is what creates more terrorists, you knucklehead

    So then Ron, you opposed our military action in Afghanistan? Do you see what a hypocrite you are? Just curious as to how deeply the self delusions have taken hold.

  321. 321.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 1:42 pm

    He reduces every exchange to its lowest common denominator.

    That’s rich, coming from ThymeZone, who more than any other poster on BJ, himself reduces every exchange to its lowest common denominator, using these threads to vent his mental illness.

  322. 322.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 1:42 pm

    Yes, Darrell, actually I do oppose it. Our intervention in Afghanistan hasn’t done diddly for us.

  323. 323.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 2, 2006 at 1:44 pm

    Darrell-

    We did not bomb civilians in Afganistan, or at least no many of them. There was an ongoing civil war, and we gave strategic and tactical support to the side we wanted to win.

    As a result the was someone with political bona fides to take over and be an ongoing ally.

    I could compare and contrast that with what we did in Iraq, but there is little point in going through the exercise.

  324. 324.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    Tulk, it’s true that putting the whack on the Taliban didn’t require a whole lot of manpower or messy bombings, but the Afghanistan operation is still a failure by any other definition given Kabul doesn’t have any control of the country and narco-trafficking by provincials is worse than it ever was.

  325. 325.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 2, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    As for RonB, our effort in Afganistan did have the result in significantly weakening the ability of al Qaeda to strike us again. That said, it could have been more successful by utterly destroying al Qaeda. It could have left a bigger mess than it did, too.

    Conclusion — it made sense at the time, and in hindsight it still does. The jury is still out as to whether it did much good for Afganistan.

  326. 326.

    Andrew

    September 2, 2006 at 1:50 pm

    We did not bomb civilians in Afganistan, or at least no many of them.

    Only 3000 or so. By they’re, like, brown, so we can multiply by 3/5 to figure out how much we care.

  327. 327.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 1:50 pm

    We did not bomb civilians in Afganistan, or at least no many of them

    The delusions have taken hold so deeply, that rational debate with people like you is not possible. You ignore all facts which refute your narrative.

  328. 328.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 1:53 pm

    I think al-Qaeda’s ability to come here again is overstated. But I’m open to other ideas. Those hijackers didn’t need Afghanistan to plan 9/11.

    We just didn’t see it coming. The reasons why we got hit are found here at home, not in Afghanistan.

  329. 329.

    Pb

    September 2, 2006 at 1:54 pm

    Incidentally, for those who are actually interested in any real facts and analysis about Plamegate, I’d recommend Emptywheel’s site, she’s done a great job on this throughout. Also, Larry Johnson has written some pretty good pieces recently about Hiatt’s (Darrell’s?) delusional fantasies. And, of course, I mentioned quite a few facts here that were ignored by the Hiatt’s of the right.

    On the other hand, if “Joe Wilson is a liar and you’re all lowlifes” is what you come here for, then by all means, Darrell (Hiatt?) is your man!

  330. 330.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 2, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    Sorry, Darrell-

    Let us stipulate that you are right, that we did bomb lots of civilians in Afganistan.

    Your point is what? That this did not create a lot of terrorists? That this is a good policy? That the reason that Iraq is such a fucking success is because we killed so many civilians there, just like we did in Afganistan, which was such a success?

    You really are getting punchy, man!

  331. 331.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    Our intervention in Afghanistan hasn’t done diddly for us.

    Thanks for at least being honest about your extremism in that area. You opposed our intervention in Afghanistan, a country run by the Taliban which supported and harbored Al Queda. So toppling that terrorist regime, according to you, hasn’t done “diddly” for us.

  332. 332.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    Me:

    There was no cut and run in Afghanistan because there was no plan to cut and run for, so stop calling it that.

    Darrell, talking about himself:

    You ignore all facts which refute your narrative.

  333. 333.

    VidaLoca

    September 2, 2006 at 1:57 pm

    Ron,

    Our intervention in Afghanistan hasn’t done diddly for us.

    Not sure I entirely buy this. I don’t see much in the way of positive results. On the other hand, I do see negative results that were forestalled — IOW I believe it’s a good thing that Osama and Mullah Omar are facing problems that they would not be facing had we not intervened.

    Darrell,

    That does raise an interesting point however. While I agree with Ron that calling refusal to support the government of Najibullan after 1989 “cutting and running” is pretty non-sensical, there was a more recent time in Afgan history where we cut and ran — in 2003 — to Iraq!

  334. 334.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 2, 2006 at 1:59 pm

    RonB-

    You may well be right. I was a centrist who supported both the campaigns in Afganistan and Iraq, and for the life of me I can’t figure out why it seemed like such a good idea at the time.

    I could say that I never thought Bush would make such a hacktacular disaster out of it, but in retrospect, that should have been the one thing to be most sure of.

  335. 335.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    You opposed our intervention in Afghanistan, a country run by the Taliban which supported and harbored Al Queda. So toppling that terrorist regime, according to you, hasn’t done “diddly” for us.

    Hey bright boy, lets remember that the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was a message. Easy meat.

  336. 336.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 2:01 pm

    Tulkinghorn Says:

    Sorry, Darrell-

    Let us stipulate that you are right, that we did bomb lots of civilians in Afganistan.

    Your point is what?

    My point is/was that civilian casualties (exponentially more civilian casualties were suffered in WWII) do not define whether military action is justified. Except for the most extreme leftists, most Americans support/supported our military actions in WWII, the Balkans, and in Afghanistan, all of which resulted in lots of civilian casualties.

  337. 337.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    Were we “creating terrorists” with our collateral civilian bombings in the Balkans in the 1990’s?

  338. 338.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 2:05 pm

    IOW I believe it’s a good thing that Osama and Mullah Omar are facing problems that they would not be facing had we not intervened.

    I can be swayed to this particular POV, but I wonder if we could’ve nailed Osama without the war. Mullah Omar, well, to quote George Bush, “I really don’t think about him very often”.

  339. 339.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 2:07 pm

    I was a centrist who supported both the campaigns in Afganistan and Iraq, and for the life of me I can’t figure out why it seemed like such a good idea at the time.

    LOL…you think you were confused, hell, I was a goddamn fire breathing neocon at the time! I can’t even claim I was a centrist!

  340. 340.

    Pb

    September 2, 2006 at 2:07 pm

    Because, you know, things are going so well in Afghanistan. I guess when compared to Iraq it might almost look like a success story, but that’s not saying much. On the other hand, if freedom isn’t necessarily blossoming all across Afghanistan, at least Opium is–all the Opium you can eat, and more:

    Opium cultivation in Afghanistan is spiraling out of control, rising 59 percent this year to produce a record 6,100 tons _ nearly a third more than the world’s drug users consume

  341. 341.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 2, 2006 at 2:08 pm

    Darrell,

    The point was not that civilian casualties are unavoidable, it is whether, in a war against ‘Terrorism’, it is self-defeating to kill a lot of civilians and thereby create a lot more terrorists. I would say that problem did not apply to Afganistan, but sure as hell applies to Iraq.

    And nice slur about leftists during WWII. Those were the guys later called ‘premature antifascists’ by the very reactionary assholes who were soft on Nazis in the 1930s.
    What is the reactionary version of ‘pinko’? Do we call them ‘tanshirts’?

  342. 342.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 2, 2006 at 2:11 pm

    …all the Opium you can eat, and more

    Hey, I’ve got a solution!

    Let’s make the Chinese let us sell it to their peasants!

    Since we are making the same mistakes from 100 years ago all over again, lt’s keep up the good ideas!

  343. 343.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 2:12 pm

    The point was not that civilian casualties are unavoidable, it is whether, in a war against ‘Terrorism’, it is self-defeating to kill a lot of civilians and thereby create a lot more terrorists.

    Oooh, careful Tulk, that’s too much nuance for Darrell to handle, he might not know what to do with ideas that don’t fit neatly into his little box of “War X=all wars”

  344. 344.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    Darrell,

    The point was not that civilian casualties are unavoidable, it is whether, in a war against ‘Terrorism’, it is self-defeating to kill a lot of civilians and thereby create a lot more terrorists.

    Given that there were far more civilian casualties in WWII, were we “creating a lot more terrorists” with our military action then? Seems like this is a recent meme of the left. Were we “creating terrorists” with our military actions in the Balkans in the 1990’s. Do you see how inconsistent you and other leftists are in your position?

  345. 345.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 2:19 pm

    I’m glad that at least some of you leftists are coming clean that you didn’t support the toppling of the Taliban govt. in Afghanistan, as many on the left have used the argument “we liberals supported Afghanistan but not Iraq” to establish their credentials as willing to undertake military action in some justified circumstances.

  346. 346.

    VidaLoca

    September 2, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    Ron,

    I can be swayed to this particular POV, but I wonder if we could’ve nailed Osama without the war.

    Hard to know, of course. I think a “no” argument would begin from the premise that our allies and intelligence sources among the Afghans (e.g. among the mujahedeen) were not that good; how would we start to go about nailing him? A “yes” argument would begin from this observation:

    Tulk, it’s true that putting the whack on the Taliban didn’t require a whole lot of manpower or messy bombings,

    Getting rid of the Taliban in 2002-2003 didn’t require a whole lot of (US) manpower because the Taliban, like the Brits and the Soviets, were to a large degree foreigners who had come to fight the Soviets and stayed on when they realized that they could soon be running the country in the rural areas where the Najibullah govt. didn’t have much power and the local populace was at least glad to see them restore order (though order of a repressive sort it was).

    Either way, if you look at how some of the campaigns like ToraBora and Operation Anaconda were run it’s not surprising that we didn’t nail Osama, even with the war.

  347. 347.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    See what I mean, Tulk?

  348. 348.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 2, 2006 at 2:24 pm

    Darrell

    How thick can you get?

    We were not at war with ‘terrorism’ in WWII, we were at war with Germany, Japan, and Italy. You know, countries!

    And yes, we did not create terrorists by bombing the Balkans. But were we invading Serbia and taking it over? If we had done to Serbia what Bush did to Iraq (invade, take over, let chaos reign, start selling everything of value to international corporations for pennies on the dollar) I am sure we would have created lots of Serbian insurgents?

    Conclusion — Clinton was not an inept, corrupt, ignorant asshole like our current president.

  349. 349.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 2:24 pm

    I’m glad that at least some of you leftists are coming clean that you didn’t support the toppling of the Taliban govt. in Afghanistan, as many on the left have used the argument “we liberals supported Afghanistan but not Iraq” to establish their credentials as willing to undertake military action in some justified circumstances.

    Frankly, I think we all collectively fumbled for a response to 9/11. It’s also possible that no politician wanted to be seen as weak on a response.

  350. 350.

    VidaLoca

    September 2, 2006 at 2:27 pm

    Darrell,

    Except for the most extreme leftists, most Americans support/supported our military actions in WWII

    Not quite sure what you’re saying here — do you mean support of military actions by “most extreme leftists” during WWII, or in the 60 years after? Which specific “extreme leftists”? And in the latter case, what years?

  351. 351.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 2:28 pm

    Shorter Darrell:

    Every war is like every other war.
    Military power is the answer to everything.

    Darrell is either Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson, or Sean Hannity.

  352. 352.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 2:29 pm

    Vida, most, but not all hard-core pacifists are on the far left.

  353. 353.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 2:31 pm

    Might be Max Boot, too.

  354. 354.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 2, 2006 at 2:32 pm

    At this point Darrell is not including the Communist Party as part of the ‘far laft’, but whatever pacifists there were during a war of survival against fascism are representative of the entire far left.

    go figure.

  355. 355.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 2, 2006 at 2:35 pm

    Darrell-

    familiar with the ‘Abraham Lincoln Brigade’?

  356. 356.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 2:35 pm

    Shorter Darrell:

    Pretty much the rule is, whenever you read “Shorter..”, the rest is usually pure unfiltered nonsense. Funny how the left keeps repeating these phrases:

    “Shorter [fill in the blank]”
    “We’re creating more terrorists”
    “Clap harder”
    “Dear Leader”
    “jackalopes”
    “no blood for oil”

    Is there a leftwingnut school somewhere which teaches you to recite these phrases over and over and over?

  357. 357.

    VidaLoca

    September 2, 2006 at 2:36 pm

    Darrell,

    Vida, most, but not all hard-core pacifists are on the far left.

    That’s true — but actually the CPUSA is (well, was) a lot farther to the left (more “extreme” if you will) than your hard-core pacifists. And the CPUSA was (ironically, and dishonorably, but undeniably) 110% pro-war (pro-WWII that is) after June 1941.

  358. 358.

    VidaLoca

    September 2, 2006 at 2:38 pm

    Tulk,

    Good point! I’d forgotten about the Spanish Civil War.

  359. 359.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 2:38 pm

    Well, this has been fun, but it’s 4am here in Korea. I think I’ve gotten to the point that all I can do is make fun of Darrell. It’s what I am. I’ll leave this in Vida Loca and Tulkinghorn’s capable hands. Enjoy the whack-a-troll, guys!

  360. 360.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 2, 2006 at 2:43 pm

    I’am out too. Hurrican Ernesto is arriving and it is time to drag the kids in and make them vacuum this dump. Cheers!

  361. 361.

    ThymeZone

    September 2, 2006 at 2:50 pm

    Were we “creating terrorists” with our military actions

    Terrorism is provoked, not created, by policy. As this blurb posted earlier to the thread states,

    The problem of terrorism is not Disneyland or the Bill of Rights or MTV. The problem is America’s interventionist foreign policy, which creates enemies at every turn. The consequences will be the same for liberal intervention as for neoconservative intervention.

    The Bush administration was supposed to return “the adults” to run U.S. foreign policy. Alas, the result has been catastrophic. Instead of a policy of mature restraint, the Bush team has leavened arrogance with ignorance and incompetence. But the principal problem is principle: using war and the threat of war to advance peripheral and sometimes frivolous objectives, usually objectives which cannot be achieved through coercion. Liberals must do more than rename neoconservative policies. They must develop a foreign policy that advocates doing less as well as doing it better.

    This is not from “the left”, it’s from this guy:

    Doug Bandow is a Washington-based political writer and policy analyst and a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. He served as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and as a senior policy
    analyst in the 1980 Reagan
    for President campaign.

    Terrorism happens after it is provoked, and when failure to harden against it creates opportunity. Unprotected ports, unexamined cargo on airplanes, failure of commonsense security measures. Those measures, implemented by a sentient government that knew how to connect dots, might have prevented 911. They can prevent the next 911.

    Fighting useless wars of opportunity on countries that have no direct impact on threats, such as Iraq, create terrorism two ways: One, by diverting resources and activity away from real threats, and two, by provoking radical groups who detest our insane policies.

    Smarter policy and better security are the keys to abating terrorism. Things we might get if we can get a new government that has a clue.

    Something that might happen, no thanks to idiots like you.

  362. 362.

    VidaLoca

    September 2, 2006 at 3:13 pm

    You have to admit that without a spectacle like Darrell, the majority of posts would rarely break 100 comments.

    Shit, ThymeZone, he’s right. Darrell leaves, the party just kinda … dies.

  363. 363.

    ThymeZone

    September 2, 2006 at 3:16 pm

    Shit, ThymeZone, he’s right. Darrell leaves, the party just kinda … dies.

    Well, it just shows to go ya. Darrell is all about the page views.

    Regardless of why it is so, one thing is sure: Darrell is here because John Cole wants him here. No other reason.

  364. 364.

    Par R

    September 2, 2006 at 3:34 pm

    Some time ago there was a real piece of work that regularly posted moronic comments here; it went by the name of “ppGaz.” Does anyone know if this person is still around, or did it, hopefully, off itself?

  365. 365.

    Andrew

    September 2, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    Sorry, I meant to say that Par R is Darrell’s sprezzatura.

  366. 366.

    Pb

    September 2, 2006 at 4:07 pm

    a real piece of work that regularly posted moronic comments here

    Nope, never seen anyone like that around here…

  367. 367.

    ThymeZone

    September 2, 2006 at 4:45 pm

    IRAQ: STILL WORSE THAN YOU THINK IT IS….The Pentagon’s quarterly assessment of conditions in Iraq was released on Friday:

    Attacks and civilian deaths in Iraq have risen sharply in recent months, with casualties increasing by 1,000 a month, and sectarian violence has engulfed larger areas of the country, the Pentagon said Friday in a strikingly dismal report to Congress.

    ….”This is a pretty sober report,” said Peter Rodman, the assistant secretary of Defense for international security. “The last quarter has been rough. The level of violence is up. And the sectarian quality of the violence is particularly acute and disturbing.”

    ….Administration officials, for example, repeatedly have emphasized that recent violence has been concentrated in Baghdad. The new report notes that violence has increased in Diyala, Mosul and Kirkuk as the sectarian conflict has spread to those cities.

    In other words, they’ve been lying. Even when the Bushies switch into their pre-election war-of-civilizations mode, the happy talk continues. Three years of Republican occupation in Iraq has had about the same effect on their country as six years of Republican rule has had on ours.

    As usual, while John watches WVU football and Darrell humps your leg, Kevin Drum is on the job and getting it right.

  368. 368.

    The Other Steve

    September 2, 2006 at 5:22 pm

    Republicans protecting you from Terror!

  369. 369.

    Bob In Pacifica

    September 2, 2006 at 6:20 pm

    Forget what I said about Cal.

  370. 370.

    Darrell

    September 2, 2006 at 6:34 pm

    If we had done to Serbia what Bush did to Iraq (invade, take over, let chaos reign, start selling everything of value to international corporations for pennies on the dollar)

    The Iraq govt. owns and controls all the oil there.. but hey, why let facts get in the way? Cheyneyburton!

  371. 371.

    John S.

    September 2, 2006 at 7:45 pm

    but hey, why let facts get in the way?

    That nevers stands as an impediment to you, little tar baby.

  372. 372.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 7:53 pm

    Darrell leaves, the party just kinda … dies.

    What’s a party without a pinata, right?

  373. 373.

    RonB

    September 2, 2006 at 7:58 pm

    Hmmm…and then, as Darrell leaves, out of nowhere materializes Par R, the slope-foreheaded insult machine.

    Veeeery in-teresting…
    (stroking rhetorical chin hair thoughtfully)

  374. 374.

    Pb

    September 2, 2006 at 8:01 pm

    start selling everything of value to international corporations for pennies on the dollar

    Indeed:

    Middle East Times reported on July 31 that Iraq’s oil minister Hussein Al Shahristani said Wednesday that boosting foreign investment is vital to increasing the country’s oil output as he met in Washington with executives from major energy groups.

    The Iraq govt. owns and controls all the oil

    Indeed:

    Iraq’s prime minister declared yesterday that a four-month-old fuel shortage was over, on the same day 36 people were killed when a disused pipeline exploded as they attempted to siphon off fuel.
    […]
    “One of the solutions we have adopted is to increase production in the Iraqi refineries, while raising funds to import petroleum products from neighbouring countries,” he said, referring principally to Iran.
    […]
    A recent audit recorded that smugglers linked to Iraqi political parties stole and re-exported between 10 and 20 per cent of Iraq’s fuel imports last year, costing the country $4.2bn.

    Meanwhile, motorists in Baghdad pay up to $1.40 per litre for fuel on the black market, while the official, subsidised rate is only 20 cents.

  375. 375.

    Llelldorin

    September 2, 2006 at 9:01 pm

    Darrell, again, let’s follow your proposal through. We strike Iranian nuclear sites. This assumes that we have good enough intelligence to do so, but let’s assume that we do for the sake of argument.

    The Shiite regions of Iraq, in retaliation, cut off supplies to our troops. Iran also retaliates directly, sinking some fraction of our fleet in the Gulf with missiles. We lose our ability to negotiate with the Shiia inside Iraq, and are left with only the Kurds willing to deal with us.

    What do you do now?

    I’m asking you to explain how your plan doesn’t lead to us trying desperately to evacuate troops from the middle of an abruptly destabilized mess in Iraq.

    Again, if you want a plan from me, I’d follow Murtha’s–set a time limit on how long we’ll stay in Iraq, then get our troops relocated to a nearby friendlier country . Once the troops are in Kuwait or Quatar, Iran’s left with a much weaker hand. Our troops are still in the region, and still a threat, but Iran doesn’t have a cheap and devastating response to any US strikes.

  376. 376.

    Par R

    September 2, 2006 at 9:12 pm

    The local papers and TV stations in Phoenix carried a story about this 50-60 year old Lefty from the Vietnam era who was brought down for diddling his neighbor’s underage kids. I have assumed that it was “ppGaz” since he appears to have disappeared and he always seemed like the kind of person that would do something like that.

  377. 377.

    The Other Steve

    September 2, 2006 at 9:32 pm

    Looks like Rudy Giuliani didn’t get the message

    At least one person in the audience seemed disappointed that Giuliani was being so stingy right in the middle of half-priced red-meat week. As the mayor answered the last of the three questions from reporters, he talked about the root causes of terrorism: “oppressive governments that demagogue and blame and project their problems other places and do nothing to solve the problems of their own people.”

    “Sounds like the Democrats,” shouted a man.

    The crowd roared.

    It was the kind of stupid remark candidates usually ignore. They either agree but can’t show that they do, or they don’t want to cause a stir by contradicting one of the partisans they’ve come to court. Giuliani’s aides were already preparing to move him to his waiting SUV. He could have just left.

    “Time out,” he said bringing his hands together to make a T. “Time out.” The crowd quieted down. “The other thing we have to learn is that we can’t get into this partisan bickering. The fact is that Republicans and Democrats have the same objectives. … Democrats are loyal Americans. Republicans are loyal Americans. I think we have better answers, but we have to respect each other.”

  378. 378.

    Pb

    September 2, 2006 at 9:36 pm

    Par R Says:

    The local papers and TV stations in Phoenix carried a story about this 50-60 year old Lefty from the Vietnam era who was brought down for diddling his neighbor’s underage kids. I have assumed that it was “ppGaz” since he appears to have disappeared and he always seemed like the kind of person that would do something like that.

    What does this remind me of… Oh yes.

    a real piece of work that regularly posted moronic comments here

    Now, did you actually mean to say something about, say, Iran? Or is your goal actually to get everyone to ignore, ridicule, or repudiate you? Here, I’ll start.

  379. 379.

    ThymeZone

    September 2, 2006 at 10:39 pm

    ParR_rot took all that time off, and came back with …. no new material?

    And here I thought you’d landed that gig as Rumsfeld’s speech writer, Par. I guess that fell through. Too bad.

  380. 380.

    scs

    September 2, 2006 at 11:27 pm

    I have assumed that it was “ppGaz” since he appears to have disappeared and he always seemed like the kind of person that would do something like that.

    Well maybe it was because of his spirited defense of pedophiles a few months back. Did you all get that? Do a search to get his actual words. Anyway, he said that a pedophile was not necessarily a child molester, as a pedophile just is sexually attracted to little kids, so just having “thoughts” of molesting little kids was okay, since there is no law against ‘thoughts’. This is also the guy who constantly talked (hoped) of me being a ‘little girl’ and talked about his fantasies of me sleeping with my teddy bear at night. And this is after John Cole promised me several times he would take care of him. But John Cole talks the talk, but he doesn’t walk the walk. Sadly. I found out John is a man who doesn’t keep his word.

  381. 381.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 2, 2006 at 11:39 pm

    SCS:

    Care to let us know which states outlaw “thoughts” about molesting children? Maybe I have been living in Massachusetts too long, maybe I just got that part of the bar exam wrong…

    If you are going to slander PPGaz, at least get the crime right.

  382. 382.

    Zifnab

    September 2, 2006 at 11:55 pm

    I think scs is tacitly accusing ppGaz of pedophilia. Basically, scs wants ppGaz to stop raping him/her with his/her eyes. Or something. I’m not entirely clear.

    I’m more into the necropedophilia myself. Live kids just don’t do it for me.

  383. 383.

    scs

    September 3, 2006 at 12:02 am

    No slander- here are his words:

    https://balloon-juice.com/?p=6914#comments

    Well actually, Furious, your wife is wrong. Pedophilia is nothing but a preference. Acting on pedophilia is the crime, not pedophilia itself. There is no law against desiring any kind of sex. The law only addresses actions.
    At least, so far, until the police state advocates have completely taken over.

    And, the death penalty? Get serious. I’m a person who was quite profoundly molested as a kid, and I have to tell you, AFAIC that death penalty suggestion, unless it’s just for rhetorical effect, is an insult to intelligence, and isn’t helpful at all. Even if it is for effect, it’s stupid.

    Wow, I never caught that last part of his comment. His abusive behaviour makes sense to me now. I always thought his constant comments on little girls and teddy bears was strangely inappropriate and showed a very strange and unusual psychology behind them and now my sense is confirmed by this new information to me. As we all know, it turns out that abused children often grow up to become abusers themselves. I have now have an explantion for ppgaz’s abusive behavior. Although of course I have sympathy for what he went through as a child, I think there should be some screening for the posters that post here, and this blog should not become a vehicle for troubled people to attempt to engage in psychological abuse.

  384. 384.

    Zifnab

    September 3, 2006 at 12:10 am

    I think its offical. SCS is a Darrel spoof.

  385. 385.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 3, 2006 at 12:20 am

    scs-

    this is a plain statement of the law, you putz. I suppose it may fail to include criminal conspiracy to commit rape of a child, but that (in most states) requires an affirmative act, or at least communication of the conspiracy to a partner in crime.

    If you find that creepy, well, that is your problem.

  386. 386.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 3, 2006 at 12:21 am

    oops I called you a putz. I guess that makes for psychological abuse. my bad.

  387. 387.

    Richard 23

    September 3, 2006 at 12:23 am

    Man, Darrell and scs sure do like pie….

  388. 388.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 12:25 am

    Scs is a troll who has been riding this donkey for about a year now.

    Feel free to look up my posts about pedophilia, or any other subject. I post facts, and if the facts prove me to be wrong, I will be the first to say so. Facts are especially annoying to the asshole who writes the scs character, since scs’ posts are mostly bullshit. Just pick a subject, and scs will fuck it up.

    I actually don’t think scs is a female, at this point, but I actually don’t care, either. Whoever writes the character is a sick fuck, there’s no doubt of that.

    John Cole know who I am, has my name, two email addys, and my money. If he has any problem with me, all he has to do is write and say so. So far, the only mail I’ve received from him in 18 months has been about cat blogging, a thank you for a donation to the blo, and to thank me for supporting him on a particular topic last year. Scs is a liar. Not just on this topic, but on many topics.

    On the subject of pedophilia, this from Time Magazine:

    A psychiatric diagnosis of pedophilia merely indicates one’s desires; not all pedophiles act on their urges and actually commit child sexual abuse. Plenty of sexual abuse of kids is committed by ordinary people not generally attracted to children.

    In any event, interested persons should read the voluminous material out there on the subject and draw their own conclusions. My assertions earlier were corret AFAIK and remain correct today … pedophilia is a mental condition, and the condition does not necessarily include actual crimes against persons. I don’t know of any numbers about pedophiles and its connection to child molestation, but I am pretty sure that most molestors are not pedophiles. I am also pretty sure that the literature will confirm that pedophilia is not limited to homosexuals, although there is a tendency in popular lay literature and especially “christian” literature which attempts to connect homosexuality to pedophilia even though there is probably no clinical or empirical data out there to support the idea. If there is, then bring it forth and let’s take a look at it.

    I for one would like nothing less than to see scs turn this blog into All Bathos/ All Permanent Vegetative State and Hope for the Brain Dead / All Pedophilia / All the time. BJ could become a clearinghouse for scs’s zany ideas and bullshit, and the blog could become a fixture on the Internet specializing in the bizarre crap that comes from scs and other ignoramuses. It would be fitting payoff for letting people like scs post here.

  389. 389.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 12:28 am

    Sorry, I meant “nothing more.” Even our week-old little blog has a goddammed “edit” button so that posters can edit their frigging posts.

  390. 390.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 12:41 am

    Correction, there is one more email to me from John Cole that should be catalogued here. I wrote John to complain about Darrell, and John basically blew me off. I’m guessing that was 6-8 months ago.

    If you need more information about any of those exchanges between me and John, just write him and ask him. I’m sure this latest scs attack will please him greatly. I know if I’d spent all that time and effort building a blog, scs is just what I’d want it to be remembered for.

  391. 391.

    scs

    September 3, 2006 at 12:46 am

    So far, the only mail I’ve received from him in 18 months has been about cat blogging, a thank you for a donation to the blo, and to thank me for supporting him on a particular topic last year. Scs is a liar.

    Well then John Cole is liar if he never said anything to you because he personally assured me he would do something about you, but apparently he chickened out. He is like one of those pricipals at the elementary schools who look the other way around the molestor teachers. Apparently there are a lot of people who also like to look the other way, because if there weren’t, much abuse would be stopped in its tracks. That always fascinated me, because I am the first one to stand up to a bully, whether its directed at me or someone else, and I don’t understand how chicken-shit and apathetic so many ‘normal’ people are. It’s the human condition I guess.

    Anyway, you make sense to me now ppgaz. And your defense of pedophilia sounds like the garden variety defense that most pedophiles come up with to defend themselves -‘hey, it’s just a preference.’ You seem to be a person who needs help, and again, I say background checks are in order – especially in light of your admission that you were in the legal system on serious charges. I think it’s time we know who is on here.

  392. 392.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 12:59 am

    Well then John Cole is liar if he never said anything to you because he personally assured me he would do something about you, but apparently he chickened out.

    I doubt that he’s a liar, but I know for a fact that you are.

    I have no problem revealing my identity. At least 20-25 posters here know who I am. I’ll be glad to share it with you as soon as I know your identity.

    I’d be careful if I were you. Your last two sentences appear to me to be bordering on being actionable. I have both the means and the willingness to take legal action against you and I will not hesitate to do so if you keep this up. I am quite serious.

  393. 393.

    RonB

    September 3, 2006 at 1:01 am

    And here comes scs!

    This is too weird. Darrell leaves, and Par R and scs show up right afterwards.

    Might I suggest to the puppeteers that they put their puppets up at the same time once in a while, to throw people off?

  394. 394.

    scs

    September 3, 2006 at 1:03 am

    have both the means and the willingness to take legal action against you and I will not hesitate to do so if you keep this up. I am quite serious.

    You posted several times about being in the court system, and you expressed the fact that you were facing much time. When I have time, I will post your actual words on this. There is no action against the truth. What were these charges against you ppgaz? Why not reveal them to us?

    As for actionable charges, likewise. You continue to harass me to the point where I feel threatened and stalked, and I can do the same legally.

  395. 395.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 1:07 am

    You posted several times about being in the court system

    By all means, produce the posts. Go ahead, produce them now.

    And I will take legal action against you if it’s warranted, asshole. Make no mistake about it. Don’t think that you can hide behind anonymity.

  396. 396.

    scs

    September 3, 2006 at 1:09 am

    By all means, produce the posts. Go ahead, produce them now.

    Are you denying you said that?

  397. 397.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 1:09 am

    Nope. Produce the posts.

  398. 398.

    scs

    September 3, 2006 at 1:11 am

    Nope. Produce the posts

    .

    Good call. Don’t deny it, because you know as soon as you do, I will post them.

  399. 399.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 1:12 am

    I’m not confirming or denying anything. Just produce the posts.

  400. 400.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 1:12 am

    Produce.the.posts.now.

  401. 401.

    scs

    September 3, 2006 at 1:13 am

    I’m not confirming or denying anything. Just produce the posts.

    I’ll think I’ll hold on to them for a little while. Just to make you sweat. But you know and I know, and most people on here, know what you said.

  402. 402.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 1:14 am

    What are you waiting for?

  403. 403.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 1:15 am

    Produce the posts. Then your little harangue will come to an end. Produce the posts.

  404. 404.

    scs

    September 3, 2006 at 1:17 am

    So what were these serious legal charges you faced that you wrote about ppgaz? I’m fascinated. I can’t say I’ve ever known anyone to face serious legal time. I mean, I see it on Cops, but I’ve bever been fortunate enough to make the aquaintance of a potential felon. You’re the first self-proclaimed potential felon I’ve known, and I must say, it’s been quite a treat. What’s it’s like facing serious jail time? Were you scared? Wow, the great people you meet on here…

  405. 405.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 1:20 am

    Produce the posts, you little coward.

    Let me explain something to you: My job requires a current background check, and my status and history are a matter of public record. I have no secrets. Once you produce the posts, I will point John Cole and a large number of posters here to my personal information, and your posting days here will be over.

    So produce the posts, and do it right now.

  406. 406.

    scs

    September 3, 2006 at 1:27 am

    Let me explain something to you: My job requires a current background check, and my status and history are a matter of public record. I have no secrets. Once you produce the posts, I will point John Cole and a large number of posters here to my personal information, and your posting days here will be over

    I’ll hold on to the posts for now. Apparently from your posts, your weren’t convicted. That is why you may or may not have a clear background check. However, I am dying of curiousity. What were the charges? Wife abuse? Child abuse? Murder? Pray tell ppgaz. It would go a long way to help other potential felons on here. I just think we should share. After all you feel free to comment on what you know (or mostly make up about me), why not let’s talk about your legal background and the time in the poker you were facing? Who knows, if it happens again, maybe I might see you running around on Cops one day.

  407. 407.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 1:28 am

    You miscalculated, didn’t you? It never ocurred to you that the reason I spend a lot of time in the court system is that maybe my work takes me there, did it? I have probably spent more time “in the court system” than everyone else who has ever posted here put together. As a matter of fact, I’m on call 24 hours a day seven days a week 365 days a year.

    But produce those posts. We’ll get to the bottom of this, I assure you, and then you are done here.

  408. 408.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 1:31 am

    Yeah, you’re done. With or without the posts, you are done here.

    Twerp.

  409. 409.

    scs

    September 3, 2006 at 1:31 am

    You miscalculated, didn’t you? It never ocurred to you that the reason I spend a lot of time in the court system is that maybe my work takes me there, did it?

    Nice try. You don’t have work that makes you face serious legal charges. If you do, that’s usually because you may be a felon.

    So ppgaz, do you like to run around shirtless, or do you prefer a wife-beater?

  410. 410.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 1:34 am

    That is why you may or may not have a clear background check

    I see that you know as much about background checks and government clearances as you know about most other things: Next to nothing.

  411. 411.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 1:36 am

    why not let’s talk about your legal background

    You and I will talk about it when I know who you are.

    But I’ll be glad to forward all the particulars to John Cole, and let him decide if you are full of shit or not.

    Why don’t you write him and tell him about this exchange? I’m sure he will be delighted to hear from you again.

  412. 412.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 1:38 am

    Oh, and be sure to include those posts of mine that you are “holding on to.” I’m sure he’ll be interested.

  413. 413.

    Andrew

    September 3, 2006 at 2:02 am

    When Darrell, Par R, and scs form Stupid Voltron, who gets to be the head? DougJ?

  414. 414.

    Perry Como

    September 3, 2006 at 2:48 am

    scs Says:

    Who cares what scs says. Back under the bridge with you.

  415. 415.

    lard lad

    September 3, 2006 at 8:39 am

    So ppgaz, do you like to run around shirtless, or do you prefer a wife-beater?

    Spoof. Perhaps the unpleasantly spoofiest ever. I feel strangely tainted by exposure to the damnable spoofiness of this wretched scs spoofster.

    What confuses me is this: Why would anyone want to make up a spoof of an easily confused neurotic with a persecution complex as wide as the Gobi… only without being, well, funny about it?

  416. 416.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 3, 2006 at 9:08 am

    It never ocurred to you that the reason I spend a lot of time in the court system is that maybe my work takes me there, did it? I have probably spent more time “in the court system” than everyone else who has ever posted here put together. As a matter of fact, I’m on call 24 hours a day seven days a week 365 days a year.

    Let me guess… expert witness?

  417. 417.

    Par R

    September 3, 2006 at 9:11 am

    Lard Butt says:

    What confuses me is this: Why would anyone want to make up a spoof of an easily confused neurotic with a persecution complex as wide as the Gobi

    Is it possible that scs and ppGaz are one and the same person? Sort of an embodiment of “good” and “evil” that must from time-to-time break free and express its disparate views. Certainly, if one were to review the writings of ppGaz over recent months, one would see clear signs of mental disease, a veritable display of classic paranoid schizophrenia.

  418. 418.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 9:36 am

    Is it possible that scs and ppGaz are one and the same person?

    Why don’t you ask John Cole?

  419. 419.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 9:38 am

    Let me guess… expert witness?

    Wrong.

  420. 420.

    Andrew

    September 3, 2006 at 10:14 am

    Expert witness talent agent?

  421. 421.

    Par R

    September 3, 2006 at 10:17 am

    Almost certainly a mere “security guard.”

  422. 422.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 10:21 am

    Expert witness talent agent?

    Almost certainly a mere “security guard.”

  423. 423.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 10:21 am

    Expert witness talent agent?

    Almost certainly a mere “security guard.”

  424. 424.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 10:26 am

    Expert witness talent agent?

    Almost certainly a mere “security guard.”

    Nope. This could get tedious: The court system here has several thousand workers in hundreds of job descriptions, in both public and private service.

    Maybe you want to try to go through them alphabetically?

  425. 425.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 3, 2006 at 10:34 am

    Well, you said that you were on call, so I thought you had a good expert witness wheeze going. It is a great business, as good as prostitution without having anything to do with sex.

  426. 426.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 10:39 am

    It is a great business, as good as prostitution without having anything to do with sex.

    Well, if I wanted to be a whore, I would get a job as a pundit on television.

    More money, more glam, skyboxes for all the big games, parties with politicians and celebrities. If Carville can do it, I can do it.

  427. 427.

    Par R

    September 3, 2006 at 10:41 am

    Thank God, he’s not a security guard! It’s frightening to think of him in possession of a loaded weapon…unless they treat him like they did Barney Fife, and give him an unloaded weapon and a single bullet to be carried in a pocket.

    On balance, I suspect he’s a bail bondsman.

  428. 428.

    demimondian

    September 3, 2006 at 10:43 am

    It is a great business, as good as prostitution without having anything to do with sex.

    Hey! I resemble that remark!

  429. 429.

    CaseyL

    September 3, 2006 at 10:51 am

    I don’t think that’s really scs. It doesn’t radiate the same aura of clueless dingbat faux-naif.

    With Darrell, Par R, and scs, this site has the most boring trolls anywhere. At least scs, the real one, was fun to mess with, because it would burst into tears and threaten everyone. Darrell’s a study in accelarating dementia, albeit a not every interesting one; and Par R… I can’t think of any justification for Par R’s existence.

    Together, they personify that great definition of “bore”: Someone who deprives you of solitude without providing you with company.

  430. 430.

    The Other Steve

    September 3, 2006 at 11:03 am

    Does scs want her mommy too?

  431. 431.

    scs

    September 3, 2006 at 11:12 am

    You know DougJ, I don’t think it’s helpful that you spring into defense mode of ppgaz everytime we have words, because he’s not bright enough to get that these words of support are coming from one person, so you end up encouraging him. Although you think it’s funny, you are aiding his abusive behavior. It’s kind of an unholy partnership. I guess this almost reflects real life in that in an situation where there’s a bully you need 1.the bully, usually a person who was abused at home himself (ppgaz) 2.the apathetic authority figure (John) and 3. A group of cowards around the bully who thinks they can gain power by supporting him (DougJ).

    But really, you’re done with those spoofs ids (ie. Perry Como). Most of those ID’s above were regular posters on Scrutator, during it’s first month. Now if someone is not bright enough to figure out what that means, then I guess I can’t help them. But your tired routine is not working on me.

  432. 432.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 11:31 am

    you’re done with those spoofs ids (ie. Perry Como).

    DougJ is not Perry Como. He’s not even Eddie Fisher.

    Hell, he’s not even Julius LaRosa.

    Your perfect record of knowing nothing of which you speak remains unblemished.

  433. 433.

    Par R

    September 3, 2006 at 12:27 pm

    If anybody’s interested, here’s the current employer of ppGaz; you might take note of the general lack of customer satisfaction with this outfit, a not too surprising development given what we know about ppGaz and his general lack of class and intelligence.

  434. 434.

    Pb

    September 3, 2006 at 12:39 pm

    In other news, ppGazPar R is a poopyhead, and scsMichael Moore is fat. Now where were we? Iran?

  435. 435.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 3, 2006 at 12:42 pm

    Iran is fat.

    Iran is Michael Moore.

    let’s nuke ’em! Cuz I’ bored, and nothing else works.

  436. 436.

    Pb

    September 3, 2006 at 12:52 pm

    There we go–now we’re back on topic! I posit that Iran concealed their nuclear materials by feeding them to Michael Moore. And that’s why Michael Moore is fat. And a traitor. And glows in the dark.

  437. 437.

    demimondian

    September 3, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    Ooh! I always wanted a fat blob glow-in-the-dark nightlight!

    Can I have one, too?

  438. 438.

    Pb

    September 3, 2006 at 1:51 pm

    Go for it, Demi… there’s Moore where that came from.

  439. 439.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 2:07 pm

    given what we know about ppGaz and his general lack of class and intelligence.

    “And yet, people like me.”
    –Stuart Smalley.

  440. 440.

    Par R

    September 3, 2006 at 2:13 pm

    The Council on American-Islamic Relations has named “ppGaz” as their most valuable tool in exposing “the arrogance of the Jews that control the media in the US.” ppGaz was cited for his “vigorous defense of Islamic traditions.”

    Congratulations, ppGaz!

  441. 441.

    Zifnab

    September 3, 2006 at 2:18 pm

    The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

    Jonathan Frist

    “Roll Call, the Washington insiders’ newspaper published on Capitol Hill, recently reported that Jonathan Frist’s Facebook entry declared him a member of the “Jonathan Frist appreciation for ‘Waking Up White People’ Group”. It also mentioned a group where there were “No Jews allowed. Just kidding. No seriously”

  442. 442.

    Zifnab

    September 3, 2006 at 2:19 pm

    Does this make Jonathan Frist an Islamo-facist?

    *looks at Par R* ???

  443. 443.

    Par R

    September 3, 2006 at 2:29 pm

    This just in: “Balloon Juice comment threads cited by CAIR as second most anti-Semitic in the blogosphere.” Apparently, the Kos Kids took the top prize.

  444. 444.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 2:29 pm

    Does this make Jonathan Frist an Islamo-facist?

    I dunno, those look like kosher beers to me.

  445. 445.

    RSA

    September 3, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    I’m a bit late on this, but for what it’s worth:

    Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming—falsely, as it turned out—that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.

    Why isn’t the Post just as straightforward when dealing with the President? For example,

    President Bush chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming—falsely, as it turned out—that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, a charge which led to the invasion of Iraq.

    Has anyone ever seen something as direct as this on their editorial page?

  446. 446.

    Pb

    September 3, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    RSA,

    Why isn’t the Post just as straightforward when dealing with the President?

    Now now, those two situations are totally different. You see, editorial pages are for opinions, and as the latter example is totally true, that’d just be a waste of that valuable space for something that could instead be put into the ‘factual’ section of the paper. Falsely smearing Joe Wilson, on the other hand, definitely belongs in the editorial page–there’s no other place to put it!

  447. 447.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 2:58 pm

    Has anyone ever seen something as direct as this on their editorial page?

    No, because something like that wouldn’t have gotten you invited to the best parties and the best skyboxes at the Redskins games.

    You didn’t think beltway punditry was about ideas and stuff, did you?

  448. 448.

    Perry Como

    September 3, 2006 at 3:16 pm

    This just in: “Balloon Juice comment threads cited by CAIR as second most anti-Semitic in the blogosphere.” Apparently, the Kos Kids took the top prize.

    No word yet on the ranking of http://christianparty.net/

  449. 449.

    ThymeZone

    September 3, 2006 at 3:30 pm

    This just in: “Balloon Juice comment threads cited by CAIR as second most anti-Semitic

    Still getting your news from those Hebrew National(tm) Salami wrappers?

  450. 450.

    Zifnab

    September 3, 2006 at 3:38 pm

    Does Balloon Juice come in before or after http://www.stormfront.org/ ? How about this page: http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/getcarter/73.html ?

    I’m just curious. Maybe Balloon Juice has just taken anti-Semetism to a higher, fancier, more intrinsic level.

  451. 451.

    The Other Steve

    September 3, 2006 at 10:54 pm

    RSA – Did Darrell seriously post a link to an Editorial, claiming it as proof of something?

  452. 452.

    mrmobi

    September 4, 2006 at 12:05 am

    Having read this thread, I have a question for John Cole and the other proprietors of this blog.

    Do you think that Darrell does anything here other than demean and degrade the quality of the discourse?

    I’m a relative newcomer here, I found the site after searching for blogs discussing the use of torture. As I’ve said before, I admire the principled stand John has taken against torture and for science.

    This thread is typical of the kind of ultra-right invective that Darrell vomits regularly. Do you guys endorse it, or is this, as Thymezone says “all about the page views?”

    Darrell’s over-the-top rhetoric reminds me of the Jon Stewart appearance with Tucker Carlson on crossfire during which he said:

    “What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.“

    John, I’m forced to conclude that you’re a closet ultra-conserative who, because of your principled positions on some issues, has attracted a great crowd of literate progressives and libertarians. The problem for you seems to be, you don’t like progressives, so you put up with trolls like Darrell, because it’s easier than being honest. An honest response to Darrell would be to first warn him, and then ban him, because no one can debate with a propagandist.

    If you have ever played tennis, you’re familiar with the idea that playing with someone who is more skilled than you are invariably improves your game. The converse is also true, and Darrell’s presence here brings down everyones’ game.

  453. 453.

    CaseyL

    September 4, 2006 at 1:13 am

    mrmobi, I agree with you that Darrell is a drag. He’s not the only one, either.

    But SFAIK, John has a very strict and limited banning policy. I think he’s only banned one person, ever. To ban people for “bringing down everyone’s game” would, I think, introduce an element of subjective judgment which will lead to flamewars started by idiots with the specific purpose of getting someone banned. It’ll also lead to idiots running crying to John (or Tim or Tom) to ban someone they accuse of being abusive.

    Please note that I agree with you that this place would be a lot better without certain people. But it would also lose what I love about it: the freewheeling, no holds barred, give as good as you get argumentation.

    The best thing to do with a troll is ignore it. I admit that I don’t do that enough. I’ll try to do better.

    Maybe we can all do that.

  454. 454.

    Par R

    September 4, 2006 at 8:23 am

    Ahhh, go to Hell, CaseyL!!!

  455. 455.

    scs

    September 4, 2006 at 8:35 am

    to ban someone they accuse of being abusive.

    If you have someone attempting to go after one person constantly, you, whether he is being addressed or not, personally insulting you, calling you trailor trash, etc and not sticking to any political issues at all, every time you try to post anything, that is abuse, and should not be tolerated on this site or any site that wants to take itself seriously. Especially a guy who has a known prediliction to defend pedophilic thought, a self-professed criminal history of facing serious legal charges, and keeps calling you a “little girl” and asks about your ‘teddy bear’. Coupled with the unusual stalking and harrassment, that becomes not only creepy, but threatening.

    Even John Cole agreed to that and promised me to do something about it, but apparently John is a not a man of his word and I have lost my respect for him. His excuse was that he had “too much” going on is his life to do something about it (although I’m sure he had time to catch every re-run of Lost) I really think everyone should know about John’s lack of honesty and keep that in mind about John when he is acting all high and holy about some subject. I have kept my silence for a long time on John’s words, but I really think it’s time for everyone to know about him. (Let’s see how long he’ll keep this post up.)

    Anyway, let’s face it, truly the internet is filled with losers (ie DougJ). Of course some sites worse than others, and I think that reflects the blog leaders characters. Kind of sad because it could be a place to meet really cool people from all over the country but apparently it’s just a place for people who have no social skills to sink to. So perhaps it best to leave you losers intact in your own little club in your own little world. Carry on.

  456. 456.

    The Other Steve

    September 4, 2006 at 10:04 am

    scs – Nice passive aggressive whiney “I am a victim” rant.

  457. 457.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 10:21 am

    CaseyL — if you have a minute, visit my url for this post and grab my email addy and send me an email.

    I have some information for you.

    thx,
    PG

    PS — the address is in the first text on the first album. You sort of have to decipher it but it’s pretty easy.

  458. 458.

    VidaLoca

    September 4, 2006 at 10:25 am

    So perhaps it best to leave you losers intact in your own little club in your own little world.

    Yes. Yes it is. Absolutely the best.

    Carry on.

    Does that mean “carry on without you”? OK it’ll be hard but we’ll sure try.

    Hasta la Vista!
    Bon voyage!
    Buena Suerte!
    Just don’t let the door hit you on your way out…

  459. 459.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 10:35 am

    Hasn’t scs said a tearful goodbye before?

    How many of those are allowed by the same poster, by rule?

  460. 460.

    demimondian

    September 4, 2006 at 10:36 am

    perhaps it best to leave you losers intact in your own little club in your own little world

    Oh, don’t go away mad. Don’t away sad. Don’t go away bad.

    Just go away.

  461. 461.

    Zifnab

    September 4, 2006 at 10:56 am

    OMG! scs = Ted Stevens!
    We have another Senator in the building.

  462. 462.

    VidaLoca

    September 4, 2006 at 11:04 am

    We have another Senator in the building.

    OMG! You mean she’s not a big truck — she’s a series of tangled-up tubes?

  463. 463.

    Darrell

    September 4, 2006 at 11:05 am

    Do you think that Darrell does anything here other than demean and degrade the quality of the discourse?

    Those like mrmobi and Casey don’t dare engage me or other conservative on substance, so they launch 100% personal attacks. See this thread and others for ample evidence of this tendency. They are half-wits who cling to their leftiwing dogma.. and who don’t want their echo chamber rattled. They call for censorship, because they don’t have facts or reason. Funny how you liberal aholes so frequently call for censorship, and you’re ALL for it.

  464. 464.

    Punchy

    September 4, 2006 at 11:08 am

    Especially a guy who has a known prediliction to defend pedophilic thought, a self-professed criminal history of facing serious legal charges, and keeps calling you a “little girl” and asks about your ‘teddy bear’.

    Ok, what the hell did I miss? I’m out for a few days and we got teddy bear accusations?

  465. 465.

    demimondian

    September 4, 2006 at 11:14 am

    Oh, look! Darrell likes pie!

  466. 466.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 11:15 am

    Ok, what the hell did I miss?

    About a year’s worth of insane material from scs.

    If you can stomach it, go back and read all the exchanges between me and the mental defective known as scs. It’s pretty interesting material.

    Since it’s a holiday and I’m in a good mood, I am going to put one of my famous bets on the table. I have $50 that says that the person who writes scs is a guy.

  467. 467.

    Tsulagi

    September 4, 2006 at 11:48 am

    Off topic, but like that matters from what I see. If anyone had some question about Bush the Little reading 60 books so far this year, take a look at this video.

    He’s being interviewed by Brian Williams. His reading habits come up. There are drunks out there drunk right now who are more coherent and persuasive in their lies.

  468. 468.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 11:59 am

    There are drunks out there drunk right now who are more coherent

    I still say that a look at videos from Bush’s governor days and then at videos from the present day create a shocking contrast. The man has gone from being a sharp, articulate guy in command of his facts, to a blithering idiot, in about ten years. It’s going to become the great story of his presidency when the truth comes out. We don’t why this decline has happened, but it has, there is no doubt about it.

  469. 469.

    scs

    September 4, 2006 at 12:41 pm

    I have $50 that says that the person who writes scs is a guy.

    If it’s going to stop you asking about my teddy bear, then yes I’m a guy. You win $50.

  470. 470.

    Zifnab

    September 4, 2006 at 12:44 pm

    Williams: Tell us the backstory of Camud.
    Bush: The backstory… of… the book?
    Williams: [dodge asking a question Bush can’t answer]Well, what lead you to this?
    Bush: I was in my ranch at Crawford and my advisors said ‘Well you ought to try Camud’. I also read three Shakespears.

    Your tax dollars at work. All I’m saying is, if we’re paying this man a quarter million dollars to sit on his ranch and read French literature, I at least want a one-page book report or something.

  471. 471.

    scs

    September 4, 2006 at 12:44 pm

    Does that mean “carry on without you”? OK it’ll be hard but we’ll sure try.

    Yes you can be left with ppgaz, the pedophile defender, and the ever amusing DougJ. Lucky you.

  472. 472.

    scs

    September 4, 2006 at 12:48 pm

    Anyway, I try to hardly post on here much already. But I don’t want to leave completely cause I don’t want ppgaz to think he’s won. I’ll only leave when he stops bugging me. Although I almost feel bad for him because I know this blog is his life, as he is on here practically 24/7, so perhaps John C. just couldn’t do it to him, and maybe in the end I agree. Even a pedophilic bastard deserves to get some amusement out of life.

  473. 473.

    Zifnab

    September 4, 2006 at 12:51 pm

    Horray! He’s back!

    *big hug for scs*

    Promise you’ll never leave the Senate again. We missed you.

  474. 474.

    Zifnab

    September 4, 2006 at 12:52 pm

    Seriously, if you could move, like, two steps to the left and about one step back cause there’s a window blocking the shot.

  475. 475.

    scs

    September 4, 2006 at 12:53 pm

    Don’t worry clone. As Ahnold said, I’ll be back.

  476. 476.

    VidaLoca

    September 4, 2006 at 1:03 pm

    Yes you can be left with ppgaz, the pedophile defender, and the ever amusing DougJ.

    We were aware of that. We still think we’re getting a deal.

    ‘Bye, now.

  477. 477.

    Zifnab

    September 4, 2006 at 1:04 pm

    Isn’t it strange
    Feels like I’m lookin’ in the mirror
    What would people say
    If only they knew that I was

    Part of some geneticist’s plan (plan-plan-plan)
    Born to be a carbon copy man (man-man-man)
    There in a petri dish late one night
    They took a donor’s body cell and fertilized a human egg and so I say

    I think I’m a clone now
    There’s always two of me just a-hangin’ around
    I think I’m a clone now
    ‘Cause every chromosome is a hand-me-down

  478. 478.

    jg

    September 4, 2006 at 1:09 pm

    Darrell Says:

    Do you think that Darrell does anything here other than demean and degrade the quality of the discourse?

    Those like mrmobi and Casey don’t dare engage me or other conservative on substance, so they launch 100% personal

    Substance? You don’t have substance because you’re not a serious poster.

  479. 479.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 1:12 pm

    If it’s going to stop you asking about my teddy bear

    Heh. If you’re a guy, you definitely have a teddy bear.

  480. 480.

    Darrell

    September 4, 2006 at 1:16 pm

    Substance? You don’t have substance because you’re not a serious poster.

    Take off your V for Vendetta mask once in a while.. it’s depriving your brain of oxygen.

  481. 481.

    Pb

    September 4, 2006 at 1:20 pm

    Substance? You don’t have substance because you’re not a serious poster.

    Take off your V for Vendetta mask once in a while.. it’s depriving your brain of oxygen.

    QED.

  482. 482.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 1:20 pm

    Do you think that Darrell does anything here other than demean and degrade the quality of the discourse?

    Sure. He creates churn, which means page views. That’s why he’s here. He is here because John wants him here.

    That is the only reason, because nobody else wants him here.

  483. 483.

    VidaLoca

    September 4, 2006 at 1:40 pm

    Folks,

    I’d hate to be accused of changing the topic, but the topic seems to have run off the rails.

    I read this in the current issue of Time magazine:

    “How VA Hospitals Became The Best”

    The VA runs the largest integrated health-care system in the country, with more than 1,400 hospitals, clinics and nursing homes employing 14,800 doctors and 61,000 nurses. And by a number of measures, this government-managed health-care program–socialized medicine on a small scale–is beating the marketplace.

    [/snip]

    And all that was achieved at a relatively low cost. In the past 10 years, the number of veterans receiving treatment from the VA has more than doubled, from 2.5 million to 5.3 million, but the agency has cared for them with 10,000 fewer employees. The VA’s cost per patient has remained steady during the past 10 years. The cost of private care has jumped about 40% in that same period.

    [/snip]

    Tom Bock, commander of the American Legion, has another idea: allow elderly vets not in the system who are drawing Medicare payments to spend those benefits at a VA facility instead of going to a private doctor, as is now required by Medicare. “It’s a win-win-win situation,” he argues. Medicare, which pays more than $6,500 per patient annually for care by private doctors, could save with the VA’s less expensive care, which costs about $5,000 per patient. The vets would receive better service at the VA’s facilities, which could treat millions more patients with Medicare’s cash infusion.

    But conservatives fear such an arrangement would be a Trojan horse, setting up an even larger national health-care program and taking more business from the private sector. Congress has no plans to enlarge the scope of veterans’ health care–much less consider it a model for, say, a government-run system serving nonvets. But it’s becoming more and more “ideologically inconvenient for some to have such a stellar health-delivery system being run by the government,” says Margaret O’Kane, president of the National Committee for Quality Assurance, which rates health plans for businesses and individuals. If VA health care continues to be the industry leader, it may become more difficult to argue that the market can do better.

    Krugman has a similar artilce up.

    Personally, I had been under the impression that the VA medical system was bascially a disaster. This article makes it sound like that’s not the case. Based on your own, or your friends’, experience — is the article credible?

  484. 484.

    Pb

    September 4, 2006 at 2:10 pm

    VidaLoca,

    My understanding is that the only ‘disaster’ is the lack of funding for the VA system, and now of course the demands on its services. See what the Washington Monthly had to say about their turn-around over the past decade, it’s a good story. And of course, there’s more where that came from.

  485. 485.

    jg

    September 4, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    Darrell Says:

    Substance? You don’t have substance because you’re not a serious poster.

    Take off your V for Vendetta mask once in a while.. it’s depriving your brain of oxygen.

    Like I said, you’re not serious.

  486. 486.

    John S.

    September 4, 2006 at 2:35 pm

    Based on your own, or your friends’, experience—is the article credible?

    My uncle is on 100% disability and practically lives at the VA. Overall, I don’t here him complain much about the quality of care he is getting. The only thing I do hear him complain about is how this administration keeps underfunding the VA and generally fucking over Vets every chance they get. Which of course goes very nicely with the pro-military rhetoric they would have everyone buy into.

  487. 487.

    RSA

    September 4, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    But I don’t want to leave completely cause I don’t want ppgaz to think he’s won.

    I can’t say I understand this motivation, but the President sure seems to buy into a similar line of thought concerning Iraq.

  488. 488.

    VidaLoca

    September 4, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    Pb, John S.:

    So how do we reconcile the different pictures that start to emerge:

    “Good care for those who can get it, but overall too much tendency to force vets into the relatively inferior (inefficient and more expensive) civilian system, for reasons that are essentially political”?

    Another question: what about the situation w/r/t injured soldiers returning from Iraq/Afghanistan? I seem to recall articles about them having to fight the VA for care (esp. psychological), being nickel-and-dimed for costs, and facing more than the usual amount of red tape.

  489. 489.

    Pb

    September 4, 2006 at 2:53 pm

    VidaLoca,

    Yeah, it’d be good to take a hard look at those stories and see how much of that is the VA (and what they have control over) and how much of that is the DoD or the White House.

    Fortunately those sorts of gross oversights can usually be fixed by shining a little light on them and contacting the appropriate Congressman. And of course the unfortunate part is that it has yet to be fixed in anything other than a case-by-case basis.

  490. 490.

    VidaLoca

    September 4, 2006 at 2:54 pm

    RSA,

    I can’t say I understand this motivation, but the President sure seems to buy into a similar line of thought concerning Iraq.

    Interesting analogy, but you have to realize that here at Balloon Juice the stakes are much higher.

  491. 491.

    jg

    September 4, 2006 at 3:15 pm

    Steak is good.

  492. 492.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 3:27 pm

    but the President sure seems to buy into a similar line of thought concerning Iraq.

    He is staying there because he doesn’t want me to think I’ve won? Hell, all he had to do was say so, I’d have let him off the hook a long time ago, and saved both countries a lot of grief.

  493. 493.

    RSA

    September 4, 2006 at 3:27 pm

    Not as good as pie.

  494. 494.

    Zifnab

    September 4, 2006 at 3:38 pm

    Personally, I had been under the impression that the VA medical system was bascially a disaster. This article makes it sound like that’s not the case.

    Most of the complaints I’ve heard surrounding the VA involved Gulf War Syndrome (back in the 90s, which the government more-or-less claims doesn’t exist) or a simple lack of funding/support.

    But I have a reluctance to watch any program like that grown quickly. I don’t like watching small successful government programs suddenly get a massive influx of cash and attention, because this inevitably tacks on as much corruption and top-down mismanagement as Congress can get away with.

    But it is comforting to know that, at least according to some people, there exists a medical system in this country that doesn’t need to either cost a fortune or suck.

  495. 495.

    John S.

    September 4, 2006 at 3:54 pm

    Good care for those who can get it, but overall too much tendency to force vets into the relatively inferior (inefficient and more expensive) civilian system, for reasons that are essentially political

    That statement squares.

    My uncle who is a Vietnam Vet had Agent Orange dropped on him. From the 70s-90s, the VA treated him like shit, pushing him into an inferior system while they held that Agent Orange was much ado about nothing (like Gulf War Syndrome) which was entirely politically motivated. Once they began to come around and accept the reality of Agent Orange, he became one of those eligible for good care once the political nature of his condition went away.

    Of course, now he is on 100% disability and gets a hefty monthly stipend plus top-notch medical care. Unfortunately, he just barely made it to 60 and has more medical problems than his doctors seem to know what to do with. I happen to think he is still getting the short end of the stick, but at least his government finally recognizes what they did to him.

  496. 496.

    VidaLoca

    September 4, 2006 at 4:42 pm

    But I have a reluctance to watch any program like that grown quickly. I don’t like watching small successful government programs suddenly get a massive influx of cash and attention, because this inevitably tacks on as much corruption and top-down mismanagement as Congress can get away with.

    Yeah. I suppose the Great Society programs of the 60’s would offer enough supporting examples. Still I’d like to see the VAH grown “a little” to the point that I felt somewhat confident that

    1.) the troops coming back (in pieces, or missing pieces) from Iraq and Afganistan are being treated fairly, squarely, and as quickly as possible. They’ve been seriously abused by their government, and ultimately their government is us. No nickel-and-diming; it’s shameful and it demeans both the veterans and us.

    2.) all other individuals with combat-related medical conditions from previous conflicts are treated in similar fashion. No discrimination.

    Probably that’ll require more than just “a little” growth. It’d be nice to know how much.

    Pb is right, it’s hard to know the degree to which any story — good or bad — is generalizable from a specific case. It’s nothing short of amazing to me that a government that’s so capable of getting everything else wrong has managed somehow to do someting right but I suppose we should appreciate small miracles when they come along.

  497. 497.

    Pb

    September 4, 2006 at 5:05 pm

    VidaLoca,

    You win some, you lose some, the quality of individual government agencies can vary greatly, it seems mainly depending on their personnel, experience, and approach. For an example of a department that went in the opposite direction, look no further than FEMA–formerly a disaster, then a success of the Clinton years, and now a catastrophic laughingstock of a failure. The change? Personnel, experience, and approach. From FEMA’s website:

    The new agency was faced with many unusual challenges in its first few years that emphasized how complex emergency management can be. Early disasters and emergencies included the contamination of Love Canal, the Cuban refugee crisis and the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. Later, the Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992 focused major national attention on FEMA. In 1993, President Clinton nominated James L. Witt as the new FEMA director. Witt became the first agency director with experience as a state emergency manager. He initiated sweeping reforms that streamlined disaster relief and recovery operations, insisted on a new emphasis regarding preparedness and mitigation, and focused agency employees on customer service. The end of the Cold War also allowed Witt to redirect more of FEMA’s limited resources from civil defense into disaster relief, recovery and mitigation programs.

    Wow, “the first agency director with experience as a state emergency manager”? What a concept. FEMA was a disaster, and Witt turned it around. And then…

    In 2001, President George W. Bush appointed Joe M. Allbaugh as the director of FEMA.

    If you don’t have anything good to say, then don’t say anything at all, I guess; or…

    Within months, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th focused the agency on issues of national preparedness and homeland security, and tested the agency in unprecedented ways.

    9/11!

  498. 498.

    CaseyL

    September 4, 2006 at 5:20 pm

    … and tested the agency in unprecedented ways.

    What fucking tests are they talking about? The only real-world disaster test Bush-era FEMA had to deal with was Katrina, and it failed miserably.

    Maybe the ‘tests’ they’re talking about involve replacing the experienced crisis managers with Bush’s cronies and political hacks.

  499. 499.

    VidaLoca

    September 4, 2006 at 5:30 pm

    Pb,

    You raise an interesting point. I think there are structural differences in the respective places that FEMA and the VAH occupy in the bureaucratic jungle that have big implications on how the two will behave and develop over time.

    With VAH you have, I’d think, a natural constituency: veterans, whether in personal immediate need of medical care or not, are going to pay attention to the care available to them. They’re organized and know how to apply pressure. Conversely the hospitals are geographically dispersed but tied right into Congressional districts; and no Congressional rep wants to fail to pay attention to complaints/concerns of veteran constituents about the care they’re getting locally. So you have some tendencies in the system for misfeasance/malfeasance to be corrected, though the time span can be long as the Agent Orange and PTSD conflicts attest. There’s also a countervailing force for DoD policy to drive VAH policy I suspect, and taming DoD is a much bigger task.

    But FEMA? What’s FEMA’s geographic base? What’s its constituency? FEMA’s a bureaucratic orphan; it only gets good people appointed to it if the President actually cares to do so, which Clinton did and Bush, glaringly, did not.

  500. 500.

    Darrell

    September 4, 2006 at 5:37 pm

    What fucking tests are they talking about? The only real-world disaster test Bush-era FEMA had to deal with was Katrina,

    Yeah, all those hurricanes that hit Florida the year before (Ivan, Francis, Charley, etc.) weren’t “real-world” disasters. You sound like a really informed and intelligent person Casey.

  501. 501.

    Darrell

    September 4, 2006 at 5:46 pm

    Ignorant leftists, hyped by moveon.org repeat the lie:

    Pb Says:

    VidaLoca,

    My understanding is that the only ‘disaster’ is the lack of funding for the VA system, and now of course the demands on its services

    Secretary of VA says:

    Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi issued a statement on April 24 that refuted a growing rumor that Congress slashed funding to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The rumor had already surfaced “on the Internet, in Hollywood, and on the op-ed pages of the venerable New York Times,” according to Principi. A member of Congress, in a Chicago Sun-Times op-ed published April 13, wrote of a “$28 billion cut in veterans’ benefits and health care. “There is no truth to any suggestion or assertion that VA’s budget will be ‘cut’ or ‘slashed’ next year,” said Principi. President Bush’s fiscal year 2004 budget requests a record $63.6 billion for veterans, including a nearly 8-percent increase over the fiscal year 2003 budget for discretionary funding — which mostly pays for VA’s health care system — and a 32-percent increase in overall funding since fiscal year 2001

  502. 502.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 5:51 pm

    hyped by moveon.org repeat the lie:

    Where Darrell, the abusive lying asshole apparently paid by John Cole to maintain righty law and order at Ballon-Juice, gets his talking points. Read this and see if it doesn’t sound vaguely familiar:

    The abusive shit that Darrell spams this place with every fucking day

    Question: Why do they let this guy post here?

  503. 503.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 5:53 pm

    How the Democrats exploited Hurricane Katrina to fan the flames of suspicion and distrust among minorities and the poor

    How Democrats repeatedly smear Christians who hold to traditional values by equating them with murderous Islamic jihad terrorists

    Bush = Hitler: how deeply this outrageous smear has penetrated into the core Democratic leadership

    Why the Democrats aren’t even honest about their own core convictions

    The judicial branch: how the Democrats continue to employ it shamelessly to “legislate” policy they cannot convince the American people to adopt through democratic means

    How the Democrats deny their liberalism in favor of a euphemistic “progressivism” — but while “progressive” implies “forward-looking,” Democrats are mired in the past, reactionary on issues from Social Security (don’t change a bankrupt system) to Iraq (don’t defeat a hostile dictatorship and try to make it a democracy

    The fraudulent premise the Democrats used to oppose Bush’s proposed tax cuts, predicting (erroneously) enormous deficits and deliberately disproportionate benefits to the wealthy

    Howard Dean and the top Democratic leadership’s incredible claim that the American people will just have to trust that they can do things better than the Republicans, although they’ve articulated no specific policies

    How the Democrats can’t decide whether their electoral difficulties stem from their failure to articulate their message or from the wholesale stupidity of an electorate that is in their view too Christian, too much in favor of traditional family values, and too patriotic

    Why, as long as the Democratic Party continues to allow itself to be dominated by its fringe elements and treats mainstream conservatism as inherently offensive, it will have a built-in disadvantage in national elections
    “Don’t ever, ever be tempted to vote for a liberal, even as a protest vote. David Limbaugh shows you why, in the most devastating critique I’ve ever seen of just how intellectually and morally bankrupt the Democratic Party has become. When it comes to ‘must reads’ put David Limbaugh’s Bankrupt at the top of your list.” – SEAN HANNITY

    A view from inside Darrell’s brain.


    Why do they let this guy post here?

    Oh, gee … you don’t suppose the fact this vile book is ADVERSTISED ON PAJAMAS MEDIA has anything to do with it?

  504. 504.

    Darrell

    September 4, 2006 at 5:55 pm

    But FEMA? What’s FEMA’s geographic base? What’s its constituency? FEMA’s a bureaucratic orphan; it only gets good people appointed to it if the President actually cares to do so, which Clinton did and Bush, glaringly, did not.

    I pity you leftists for your narrow ignorant perspectives:

    Bill Clinton’s choice to be Southwest Regional FEMA director in 1993 was … Raymond “Buddy” Young, a former Arkansas state trooper, [who] got his choice assignment after leading efforts to discredit other state troopers in the infamous Troopergate scandal. If a storm like Katrina struck the Big Easy back then, Young would’ve been in charge.

    Source (original Investor Daily article link outdated)

  505. 505.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 5:56 pm

    Did you ever wonder why Darrell’s insane bullshit sounds like it comes directly from the rightwing noise machine?

    Well, it does. In fact, it comes directly from the crap machine that sells ads on Pajamas Media.

    Darrell is the PM crap salesman here.

    How much do you think they are paying him?

  506. 506.

    Darrell

    September 4, 2006 at 5:59 pm

    Where Darrell, the abusive lying asshole apparently paid by John Cole

    John Cole, you owe me money! and ppgaz agrees. Paypal me ASAP to: [email protected]

  507. 507.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 6:00 pm

    “Don’t ever, ever be tempted to vote for a liberal, even as a protest vote. David Limbaugh shows you why, in the most devastating critique I’ve ever seen of just how intellectually and morally bankrupt the Democratic Party has become. When it comes to ‘must reads’ put David Limbaugh’s Bankrupt at the top of your list.” – SEAN HANNITY

    From the Limbaugh dust jacket.

    Welcome to the land of Darrell and John Cole. Pajamas Media, which has apparently decided to declare war on half of the people in the United States.

    These people think that you are the fucking enemy.

    Whaddya think … another solid week of page views for these motherfuckers?

    Where have we heard this shit before?

  508. 508.

    jg

    September 4, 2006 at 6:00 pm

    Darrell is pure entertainment, he’s not a serious poster. He drops talking points and runs, then comes back to sprinkle more. Attempts to engage him are fruitless. He justs asserts that he’s not being engaged substantively, drops more talking points and leaves again. Not serious. He’s a party trick personified.

  509. 509.

    jg

    September 4, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    Darrell Says:

    Where Darrell, the abusive lying asshole apparently paid by John Cole

    John Cole, you owe me money! and ppgaz agrees. Paypal me ASAP to: [email protected]

    Is there a freudain slip in there?

  510. 510.

    Darrell

    September 4, 2006 at 6:03 pm

    Why, as long as the Democratic Party continues to allow itself to be dominated by its fringe elements and treats mainstream conservatism as inherently offensive, it will have a built-in disadvantage in national elections

    That is an absolutely true statement. Although the leftists who post here see themselves as noble patriots speaking truth to power.

  511. 511.

    jg

    September 4, 2006 at 6:04 pm

    ThymeZone Says:

    “Don’t ever, ever be tempted to vote for a liberal, even as a protest vote. David Limbaugh shows you why, in the most devastating critique I’ve ever seen of just how intellectually and morally bankrupt the Democratic Party has become. When it comes to ‘must reads’ put David Limbaugh’s Bankrupt at the top of your list.” – SEAN HANNITY

    From the Limbaugh dust jacket.

    Welcome to the land of Darrell and John Cole. Pajamas Media, which has apparently decided to declare war on half of the people in the United States.

    These people think that you are the fucking enemy.

    Whaddya think … another solid week of page views for these motherfuckers?

    Where have we heard this shit before?

    These people aren’t evil, they’re shallow. They know they have nothing to offer so they win by giving you no choice but to vote for them. A vote for anyone else is simply unacceptable unless you’re scum is the basic idea. You don’t want to be thought of as scum do you?

  512. 512.

    Darrell

    September 4, 2006 at 6:05 pm

    Darrell is pure entertainment, he’s not a serious poster. He drops talking points and runs, then comes back to sprinkle more. Attempts to engage him are fruitless

    When you have no facts, no reason and no brains.. this is what’s left.

  513. 513.

    jg

    September 4, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    Why, as long as the Republican Democratic Party continues to allow itself to be dominated by its fringe elements and treats mainstream liberalism conservatism as inherently offensive, it will have a built-in disadvantage in national elections

  514. 514.

    jg

    September 4, 2006 at 6:07 pm

    Darrell Says:

    jg says:
    Darrell is pure entertainment, he’s not a serious poster. He drops talking points and runs, then comes back to sprinkle more. Attempts to engage him are fruitless

    When you have no facts, no reason and no brains.. this is what’s left.

    Exactly my point Darrell, thanks. LOL

  515. 515.

    Darrell

    September 4, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    Welcome to the land of Darrell and John Cole. Pajamas Media, which has apparently decided to declare war on half of the people in the United States

    ThymeZone doesn’t need links to substantiate claims like this, because, well, because ‘facts are for losers’.

  516. 516.

    The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me

    September 4, 2006 at 6:12 pm

    Darrell is pure entertainment, he’s not a serious poster.

    Careful. You might have to eat those words, jg.

    He drops talking points and runs, then comes back to sprinkle more.

    The jury’s still out on whether or not Senator Corky likes donuts.

    Attempts to engage him are fruitless.

    Bullshit. He likes pie, dammit!

    He justs asserts that he’s not being engaged substantively, drops more talking points and leaves again. Not serious. He’s a party trick personified.

    At least he likes pie. How many Democrats can honestly say they like pie? Wholesome apple pie, made by Mom? I bet John Kerry hasn’t eaten apple pie in at least 45 years. He’s never eaten Freedom Fries, for that matter. Or Freedom Toast. Or a salad with Freedom Dressing on it.

    Moonbats hate America. Senator Corky likes pie. That’s why I trust Senator Corky to beat Al Qaeda, but I wouldn’t trust John Kerry to hold a door open for me without running off to have fun and windsurf.

  517. 517.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 6:13 pm

    ThymeZone doesn’t need links to substantiate claims like this

    Doesn’t matter. The links are there. You’re nothing but a fucking cut and paste artist for the shitmongers at Pajamas Media and Republican talking points.

    I’ll wager that every complete sentence you’ve ever posted here about “the left” has been cut and pasted from somewhere else.

  518. 518.

    Darrell

    September 4, 2006 at 6:15 pm

    Where Darrell, the abusive lying asshole apparently paid by John Cole to maintain righty law and order at Ballon-Juice

    Welcome to the land of Darrell and John Cole. Pajamas Media, which has apparently decided to declare war on half of the people in the United States.

    How about declaring war on mental illness and making ppgaz the first casualty?

  519. 519.

    jg

    September 4, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    Darrell Says:

    Welcome to the land of Darrell and John Cole. Pajamas Media, which has apparently decided to declare war on half of the people in the United States

    ThymeZone doesn’t need links to substantiate claims like this, because, well, because ‘facts are for losers’.

    Is this how a serious right winger responds? Where’s your substance? Why should I listen to you?

  520. 520.

    searp

    September 4, 2006 at 6:17 pm

    Darrell, maybe you can define mainstream conservatism for me. It sure seems to have moved a lot in the last 5 years.

    Do you mean Burkean conservatism a la George Will? I find him thoughtful, although I often disagree with him.

    Do you mean Goldwater conservatism? I find that a little harder to swallow, but he was honest and had a libertarian tendency that I support.

    If you mean Bushism, I get off the boat. It isn’t conservatism, it is plutocracy combined with a nasty authoritarian streak and know-nothing populism. There is no suitable predecessor in our political tradition, in my opinion, at least not on the winning side of the Civil War.

    No need to legitimate THAT by treating it respectfully.

  521. 521.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 6:18 pm

    He reveals the outright dishonesty of Democratic leaders as they dare to politicize issues of national security. He reveals how top Democratic leaders have a consistent pattern of lying about the President over the war in Iraq, shows how much damage they have done to their credibility with their carping and defeatism, and explains how their slavering hatred of George W. Bush has led them into all sorts of political blind alleys. He also lays bare the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Democratic party on judges, values, race, and the economy, exposing the Democrats as the party that is trashing the Constitution, fomenting race and class warfare, and driving the once-robust American economy to the brink of catastrophe.

    Who’s the “he” in this blurb?

    Darrell?

    Well, around here it is. Unfortunately, Darrell just copies this crap from its source, the hatemongering word factory at Pajamas Media who will gladly declare you to be the enemy of your own country in order to sell books, make money, and pimp up corrupt blogs.

  522. 522.

    VidaLoca

    September 4, 2006 at 6:20 pm

    Darrell,

    I belive that you’re right that the response to Hurricane Charley (Florida, Aug. 2004, category 4) was well managed.
    It was also three months before the 2004 elections. In a state that Bush couldn’t afford to lose.

    By contrast, the response to Hurricane Wilma (Florida, Oct. 2005, category 5) was poorly managed. See for example here and here.

    Also although Wilma was rated at category 5, both Wilma and Charley were only order 1/4 as costly as Katrina which at category 3 carried less destructive force than either of the other two storms (source: Wikipedia entry on “Hurricane Charley”):

    Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes

    Cost refers to total estimated property damage.
    Rank Hurricane Season Cost (2005 USD)
    1 Katrina 2005 $81.2 billion
    2 Andrew 1992 $44.9 billion
    3 Wilma 2005 $16.8 billion
    4 Charley 2004 $15.4 billion
    5 Ivan 2004 $14.6 billion

    Circumstantial argument? Of course. But how do you then explain the difference in the two levels of response, to storms of approximately the same cost (though slightly different magnitude) in the same state, only a year apart?

  523. 523.

    jg

    September 4, 2006 at 6:20 pm

    There is no suitable predecessor in our political tradition, in my opinion, at least not on the winning side of the Civil War.

    Its been my opinion for a few years now we’re being governed by the children of those who lost the Civil War. They got it done throught ballots instead of bullets and oddly have not been able to apply that leasson to foreign policy.

  524. 524.

    Darrell

    September 4, 2006 at 6:20 pm

    searp Says:

    Darrell, maybe you can define mainstream conservatism for me. It sure seems to have moved a lot in the last 5 years.

    Do you mean Burkean conservatism a la George Will? I find him thoughtful, although I often disagree with him.

    Do you mean Goldwater conservatism? I find that a little harder to swallow, but he was honest and had a libertarian tendency that I support.

    If you mean Bushism, I get off the boat. It isn’t conservatism, it is plutocracy combined with a nasty authoritarian streak and know-nothing populism. There is no suitable predecessor in our political tradition, in my opinion, at least not on the winning side of the Civil War.

    No need to legitimate THAT by treating it respectfully.

    You morons love to preen and posture with your strawmen don’t you?

  525. 525.

    jg

    September 4, 2006 at 6:24 pm

    Darrell Says:

    searp Says:

    Darrell, maybe you can define mainstream conservatism for me. It sure seems to have moved a lot in the last 5 years.

    Do you mean Burkean conservatism a la George Will? I find him thoughtful, although I often disagree with him.

    Do you mean Goldwater conservatism? I find that a little harder to swallow, but he was honest and had a libertarian tendency that I support.

    If you mean Bushism, I get off the boat. It isn’t conservatism, it is plutocracy combined with a nasty authoritarian streak and know-nothing populism. There is no suitable predecessor in our political tradition, in my opinion, at least not on the winning side of the Civil War.

    No need to legitimate THAT by treating it respectfully.

    You morons love to preen and posture with your strawmen don’t you?

    A serious person would answer the questions put to them. You didn’t do that. What does that make you?

  526. 526.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 6:25 pm

    Conservatives know that the Republican Party is far from perfect. It could do much better on immigration, domestic spending, and other issues. But at least it does still stand for something beyond the win-at-all-costs mentality that has captured the soul of the Democratic party. The Republican party is now the only choice for those who want to see our nation prevail in the war on terror. And it still contains many trustworthy elements working for sound conservative domestic policies as well.

    This is a Pajamas Media site. Surely we should have some more Pajamas Media / World Net Daily / David Limbaugh material here?

    If Darrell can cut and paste it, why don’t we all cut and paste it?

  527. 527.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    The Republican party is now the only choice for those who want to see our nation prevail in the war on terror.

    Get it? Vote Republican or Lose the War On Terror!

    That’s the official position of this website. Let’s respect that, starting today.

  528. 528.

    Darrell

    September 4, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    By contrast, the response to Hurricane Wilma (Florida, Oct. 2005, category 5) was poorly managed. See for example here and here.

    Those links don’t demonstrate any particularly bad management.. any different than similar federal responses over the past decade.

  529. 529.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 6:27 pm

    Those links don’t demonstrate any particularly bad management

    Which part of World Net Daily or Pajamas Media did you copy that from?

  530. 530.

    Darrell

    September 4, 2006 at 6:30 pm

    Bill Clinton’s choice to be Southwest Regional FEMA director in 1993 was … Raymond “Buddy” Young, a former Arkansas state trooper, [who] got his choice assignment after leading efforts to discredit other state troopers in the infamous Troopergate scandal. If a storm like Katrina struck the Big Easy back then, Young would’ve been in charge.

    What? Political appointments under a Democrat administration? What is the world coming to?

  531. 531.

    Krista

    September 4, 2006 at 6:30 pm

    The Republican party is now the only choice for those who want to see our nation prevail in the war on terror.

    That’s right, kids.

    Vote Republican, or die.

    That’s the message you’re being sent. And unfortunately, enough people are susceptible enough to fear to actually swallow this horse-doody.

  532. 532.

    Darrell

    September 4, 2006 at 6:32 pm

    That’s right, kids.

    Vote Republican, or die.

    Or “Bush = Hitler” who is “shredding” the constitution by “wiretapping Americans without warrant”

  533. 533.

    VidaLoca

    September 4, 2006 at 6:35 pm

    Darrell,

    Bill Clinton’s choice to be Southwest Regional FEMA director in 1993 was … Raymond “Buddy” Young, a former Arkansas state trooper, [who] got his choice assignment after leading efforts to discredit other state troopers in the infamous Troopergate scandal. If a storm like Katrina struck the Big Easy back then, Young would’ve been in charge.

    Well, contra the kids at the Corner, that’s not quite true: Young’s boss, James Lee Witt, would have been in charge. From the Wikipedia entry on Witt:

    When Bill Clinton was elected President he appointed Witt to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency and he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 1993. During his tenure Clinton elevated FEMA to cabinet status, and Witt overturned FEMA’s previously poor reputation. A 1992 interim report by the US Congress (prior to Hurricane Andrew led to further criticism of FEMA) had said that “FEMA is widely viewed as a political dumping ground, a turkey farm, if you will, where large numbers of positions exist that can be conveniently and quietly filled by political appointment…”[1] By 1996 an Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial said that “FEMA has developed a sterling reputation for delivering disaster-relief services, a far cry from its abysmal standing before James Lee Witt took its helm in 1993. How did Witt turn FEMA around so quickly? Well, he is the first director of the agency to have emergency-management experience. He stopped the staffing of the agency by political patronage. He removed layers of bureaucracy. Most important, he instilled in the agency a spirit of preparedness, of service to the customer, of willingness to listen to ideas of local and state officials to make the system work better.”[2]

    Witt’s term of office saw approximately 348 Presidential declared disaster areas in more than 6,500 counties and in all 50 states and territories. Witt supervised the response to the most costly flood disaster in the nation’s history at that time, the most costly earthquake, and a dozen serious hurricanes.

    Witt is currently President of James Lee Witt Associates, LLC which provides consulting on emergency and disaster preparedness to local and state governments. Witt also serves as CEO of the International Code Council which sets international standards for building construction.

    On September 3, 2005, he was hired by Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco to oversee reconstruction efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. In December 2005 the University of Texas System hired his firm to prepare, process, and recover claims for damages from FEMA related to natural disasters.

    Witt has been mentioned as a potential Democratic candidate for Governor of Arkansas.

    Lest we forget, Michael Brown’s previous job was the Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association.

  534. 534.

    Darrell

    September 4, 2006 at 6:39 pm

    Well, contra the kids at the Corner, that’s not quite true: Young’s boss, James Lee Witt

    What was “not true” about this statement?

    Bill Clinton’s choice to be Southwest Regional FEMA director in 1993 was … Raymond “Buddy” Young, a former Arkansas state trooper, [who] got his choice assignment after leading efforts to discredit other state troopers in the infamous Troopergate scandal. If a storm like Katrina struck the Big Easy back then, Young would’ve been in charge.

  535. 535.

    jg

    September 4, 2006 at 6:44 pm

    Or “Bush = Hitler” who is shredding” the constitution by “wiretapping Americans without warrant”

    How is “wiretapping Americans without warrant” not shredding” the constitution?

  536. 536.

    Darrell

    September 4, 2006 at 6:44 pm

    Lee Witt, would have been in charge

    How’d he do managing FEMA’s response to Hurricane Floyd? You lying jackasses dishonestly assert that “if a Democrat” were in charge, all the problems and cronyism associated with a bloated bureaucracy like FEMA would be so drastically improved.. and I’m saying that you all are demonstrably full of shit in asserting that.

  537. 537.

    jg

    September 4, 2006 at 6:53 pm

    You lying jackasses dishonestly assert that “if a Democrat” were in charge, all the problems and cronyism associated with a bloated bureaucracy like FEMA would be so drastically improved.. and I’m saying that you all are demonstrably full of shit in asserting that.

    You left off the ending: “…and I’m going to accuse you of using strawman arguments, all without a hint of irony.”

  538. 538.

    VidaLoca

    September 4, 2006 at 7:04 pm

    Darrell,

    How’d he do managing FEMA’s response to Hurricane Floyd?

    Sounds like more storm (esp. flood damage in N. Carolina) than the system could handle.

    You lying jackasses dishonestly assert that “if a Democrat” were in charge, all the problems and cronyism associated with a bloated bureaucracy like FEMA would be so drastically improved..

    No. I’m asserting that if you put people with some ability, competence, as opposed to horse judges, in positions such as head of FEMA that your chances of good outcomes in the face of disaster situations will be significantly improved — irrespective of the bureaucracy and cronyism that will exist no matter the party in power.

    Not every Democrat would do this, and not every Republican wouldn’t. But Clinton did, and Bush didn’t.

  539. 539.

    demimondian

    September 4, 2006 at 7:09 pm

    Geez, Darrell, we already know that you like pie. (Or, as it keeps showing up for me you “like pie!”) Don’t you have anything substantive to contribute to the discussion?

  540. 540.

    VidaLoca

    September 4, 2006 at 7:14 pm

    searp,

    There is no suitable predecessor in our political tradition, in my opinion, at least not on the winning side of the Civil War.

    Check this: Gah, I’m trying, Tom, I’m trying (from Sept. 1)

    What we have watched unfold for a few decades, I have argued, is a broad reversion to 19th-century political form, with free-market economics understood as the state of nature, plutocracy as the default social condition, and, enthroned as the nation’s necessary vice, an institutionalized corruption surpassing anything we have seen for 80 years. All that is missing is a return to the gold standard and a war to Christianize the Philippines.

    Damn skippy! And though we new William Jennings Bryans haven’t noticed labor being crucified on any Crosses of Gold, we new Mark Twains have indeed noticed that the war to “democratize” Iraq looks suspiciously like the 21st Century version of the Philippine Operation — all the way down to our boys torturing the brown folks with novel uses of water. Hell, we’ve even noticed that Joe Lieberman is perfectly playing the Albert Beveridge role of the Democratic Party’s token imperialism-apologist, and noticed that a multitude of Talibangelical figures like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have solemnly taken on the divine mission of Rev. Josiah Strong. More happily, we’ve also noticed that the Andrew Carnegie role of Conscientious & Appalled Wealthy Activist has also been filled — by one George Soros.*

  541. 541.

    Par R

    September 4, 2006 at 7:26 pm

    ThymeZone appears to have gone completely unhinged today. He manifests all of the classical signs of paranoid schizophrenia, striking out in weird and silly ways at all sorts of imagined enemies…Pajamas Media, for God’s sake; how nuts do you have to be to imagine such absolute rubbish. I wonder if his family or employer know just how far around the bend he has wandered in his demented state.

  542. 542.

    The Other Steve

    September 4, 2006 at 7:33 pm

    I like Pie!

  543. 543.

    Pb

    September 4, 2006 at 7:34 pm

    Man oh man, nothing pisses off a Republican hack like a Clinton success contrasted with a Bush failure. The truth hurts.

  544. 544.

    Par R

    September 4, 2006 at 7:38 pm

    Man oh man, nothing pisses off a Republican hack like a Clinton success contrasted with a Bush failure. The truth hurts

    More than mere “apples and oranges;” this is a true fruit salad of a comparison. In fact, it’s so silly and nutty, that it sounds like something nutjob ThymeSone might write.

  545. 545.

    demimondian

    September 4, 2006 at 7:44 pm

    Wow. Pb, that’s an amazing conjunction. Given that Floyd was a genuine Cat 5 when it hit the shore, the fact that there were only 4 deaths is astounding.

  546. 546.

    Darrell

    September 4, 2006 at 8:23 pm

    No. I’m asserting that if you put people with some ability, competence, as opposed to horse judges, in positions such as head of FEMA that your chances of good outcomes in the face of disaster situations will be significantly improved—

    As a general rule you’re point is valid, but by the time Katrina rolled in Brown already had first hand experience managing a number of significant disasters, and by most accounts, he did well overall. What specific decisions/calls did Brown make that were so bad given the circumstances and resources?

  547. 547.

    jg

    September 4, 2006 at 8:42 pm

    Darrell Says:
    What specific decisions/calls did Brown make that were so bad given the circumstances and resources?

    Its his job to make decisions in those circumstances and given those resources. Whats the point of ignoring them? You’re just not serious.

  548. 548.

    Zifnab

    September 4, 2006 at 8:59 pm

    What specific decisions/calls did Brown make that were so bad given the circumstances and resources?

    None! Brown was flawless! It was all those godless gays!

  549. 549.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 9:02 pm

    Why do Balloon-Juice, Pajamas Media, World Net Daily and Fuckhead Darrell say things like “Vote Republican or Die.”

    Here’s why, in a nutshell.

    They don’t want you to know how you are being fucked up the ass in every possible way by six years of Republican government.

    From a useless war to exploding uninsured numbers to regressive taxation to collapsing incomes, the working middle class is continually hosed by Republican government.

    Read the map and weep. While John Cole pays Darrell to shit on threads and stir up page views to sell more David Limbaugh books, you are being FUCKED EVERY DAY.

  550. 550.

    Tulkinghorn

    September 4, 2006 at 9:24 pm

    As a general rule you’re point is valid, but by the time Katrina rolled in Brown already had first hand experience managing a number of significant disasters, and by most accounts, he did well overall. What specific decisions/calls did Brown make that were so bad given the circumstances and resources?

    You’re kidding, right?

  551. 551.

    Zifnab

    September 4, 2006 at 9:41 pm

    Honestly, I blame the gays. If it wasn’t for Gay America, we never would have had hurricanes to begin with. If you’ll note my ascii graph below, you’ll see the direct correlation between the rise of Will & Grace viewership and the increase in cataclysmic weather patterns.

    *********Time of Jesus*****Time of Washington*****Modern Day
    Gayz! *****-15***************the french***************Buttsexillion
    Windiness **0*************only near Catholics*********Too Many

    Some scientists speculate that the pounding of the male posterior with gigantic shlong creates a wind, not unlike the proverbeal butterfly in Brazil, that builds in intensity over time until unleashing its God-induced fury upon St. Bernard Parish in NO.

    One need look only as far as Gay Commie Island (aka Cuba) to see the evidence of penanal penetration and increased storm activity. I’m honestly surprised that little island exists in the face of God’s Almighty Fury(tm). If this were 5000 years ago, and I were them I’d be looking for Noah and a large yaht.

    I mean, when the entire earth was placed under water for 40 days and nights, mankind was able to pull itself up by its own bootstraps. And the people of NO couldn’t make it for a work week. This just proves that black people are lazy and don’t work hard. Brown did a heckova job.

  552. 552.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 10:25 pm

    One need look only as far as Gay Commie Island (aka Cuba) to see the evidence of penanal penetration and increased storm activity

    Stop already! If I laugh any harder, I’ll get an asthma attack.

  553. 553.

    Pb

    September 4, 2006 at 10:32 pm

    What specific decisions/calls did Brown make that were so bad

    Well, for one, he thought he was a “fashion God“…

  554. 554.

    ThymeZone

    September 4, 2006 at 11:02 pm

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — Most Americans are angry about “something” when it comes to how the country is run, and they are more likely than in previous years to vote for a challenger this November, a new poll suggests.

    A majority of Americans surveyed — and a higher percentage than recorded during the same time last year — said things in the United States are going “badly.” Among this year’s respondents, 29 percent said “pretty badly” and 25 percent — up from 15 percent a month ago — answered “very badly.” By comparison, 37 percent described the way things are going as “fairly well,” and 9 percent answered “very well.”

    Of these people, 76 percent said there was “something” to be angry about in the country today. By comparison, 59 percent felt that way when polled in February

    Whaddya think? Are they angry that not enough has been done to reverse the Gay Agenda, or are they angry that the Republicans have every institution of power at the federal level and still can’t stop blaming other people for anything and everything under the sun?

    Are they angry about a war they were lied into? About their collapsing incomes? About regressive taxation and massive government debt? About profligate spending? About unavailable and costly healthcare and prescription drugs? About divisive politics and school boards trying to pimp superstition over science?

    Maybe Darrell needs to make more posts cutting and pasting from the RepubliCrap found on Limbaugh book jackets and advertised on this blog? Maybe the noise machine JUST ISN’T MAKING ENOUGH FUCKING NOISE?

  555. 555.

    ThymeZone

    September 5, 2006 at 12:51 am

    George Packer on the Bush administration in the New Yorker:

    I think what those people have done is [turned] what should be very difficult strategic policy questions into, essentially, part of a permanent campaign at home to win a political argument. I think they’ve taken that more seriously, they’ve given it more energy, and they consider it more important, in a way, than they do the actual conflict outside of our borders.

    This is, by a long measure, the most underreported aspect of the Bush administration’s war on terror. Not that they’re pursuing the wrong strategy — though they are — but that in the end they don’t really care that much one way or the other. Winning the war has always been secondary to winning elections.

    Kevin Drum, as always, getting it right.

  556. 556.

    RonB

    September 5, 2006 at 3:43 am

    If it’s going to stop you asking about my teddy bear, then yes I’m a guy. You win $50.

    Recently, scs, the only person mentioning your teddy bear is you, dear. For someone who is so eager to be rid of P, you spend an awful lot of time goading him.

  557. 557.

    searp

    September 5, 2006 at 10:26 am

    Vida Loca: nice catch, but the analogy isn’t exact. The 19th century plutocrats didn’t believe in wedge issues to get the requisite number of votes, they bought them fair and square. They also didn’t really mind people disagreeing, since they controlled all the mass media.

    Also, Darrell ignored my question and decided that I was a moron, but I am really wondering how modern conservatism is defined.

    I personally do not regard Bushism as conservative in any real sense of the word. Conservatism is not defined by monomaniacal policy specifics like tax cuts. My understanding is that conservatism is innately libertarian (if it doesn’t bother me much, go ahead), devoted to limiting government size and power, and interested in maintaining traditions, be it Christmas or the Constitution.

    By contrast, we get under Bush horrendous fiscal imbalances, growth in government, and the growth of a Security State every bit as intrusive as the Nanny State of old. We get radical policies on the use and threat of armed force as opposed to diplomacy. We get foreign entanglements (yes, I use that word deliberately) as opposed to foreign engagement. We get regulation in the social arena in areas where the public is very divided. We get the radical re-interpretation that our right to be free is qualified because we are threatened.

    This is simply not conservatism, but it sure smacks of anti-libertarian Big Brotherism. Well, the Prez ain’t my brother and I don’t want to drink beer with him, I want him and his cronies to leave me alone.

  558. 558.

    VidaLoca

    September 5, 2006 at 11:00 am

    searp,

    nice catch, but the analogy isn’t exact. The 19th century plutocrats didn’t believe in wedge issues to get the requisite number of votes, they bought them fair and square. They also didn’t really mind people disagreeing, since they controlled all the mass media.

    Nah, it’s not quite exact but it’s interesting in the sense that modern conservativism seeks to turn back not just the New Deal (which was in part a consensus about how the government should operate and what a citizen’s relation to the government should be) but turn back to a point before the New Deal where government was an instrumentality of the elite in a much more crude and basic sense.

    So you’re asking for a definition of “modern conservativism”, I’d say that modern conservativism has (as you point out) jumped the shark: it has little or nothing to do with the “limited government / low taxes / individual rights” model that we learned about in high school civics. It is in fact fundamentally reactionary, rejecting the conservative model as much as it rejects the liberal model.

    I don’t see any consistent theory of government or overarching ideology at work in the Bush administration. It’s about holding power, and using that power to gain more power.

    And actually, I think that’s a new phenomenon. I don’t think the Golden Age plutocrats went that far. Of course, maybe that was because they didn’t have to.

  559. 559.

    Pb

    September 5, 2006 at 11:37 am

    This just in, Glenn Greenwald analyzes and exposes Bush’s (and Darrell’s) favorite shiny new talking point about Iran!

    And incidentally, he’s also had some great analyses on Bush cultism:

    It used to be the case that in order to be considered a “liberal” or someone “of the Left,” one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, “judicial activism,” hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a “liberal,” such views are no longer necessary.

    Now, in order to be considered a “liberal,” only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a “liberal,” regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more “liberal” one is. Whether one is a “liberal” — or, for that matter, a “conservative” — is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

  560. 560.

    searp

    September 5, 2006 at 11:47 am

    Vida: very good points. I agree about the unprincipled (I am using this descriptively as opposed to pejoratively) nature of the current government.

    It is also the case that this sort of approach to elective politics is fundamentally mendacious. If you actually only believe in power, what does that say about everything you are saying to prospective voters?

    Pb: The confusion and lack of any sort of factual basis for policy in the current war on terror is absolutely breathtaking. One recent phenomenon that I see (I work with soldiers): our soldiers don’t buy the swill. Since they actually have to try to stay alive in Iraq, they end up being very much better informed on the people there and our efforts. I think all the freedom rhetoric falls flat when your butt is on the line and you have an up close and personal understanding of the people.

    I read Greenwald every day, he is excellent. As another little anecdote, a relative is a serious Bush republican, goes to political events all the time. She mentioned to me that in her opinion many of her colleagues are “crazy”, because they spend all their time obsessing about the real enemy – Democrats – as opposed to anything related to the good of the country.

  561. 561.

    Pb

    September 5, 2006 at 12:24 pm

    searp,

    a relative is a serious Bush republican, goes to political events all the time. She mentioned to me that in her opinion many of her colleagues are “crazy”, because they spend all their time obsessing about the real enemy – Democrats – as opposed to anything related to the good of the country.

    It’s good to hear that your relative is less crazy in that respect. :)

    Incidentally, to hear what the crazies really want, pick any hard-line speech about cracking down on terrorists and replace ‘terrorist’ with ‘Democrat’.

  562. 562.

    VidaLoca

    September 5, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    If you actually only believe in power, what does that say about everything you are saying to prospective voters?

    “Look! Look! In my hand! Shiny!”
    “Look! Look! Under the bed! Scary!”

  563. 563.

    Beef Jezos

    October 10, 2006 at 1:22 am

    Those pesky Persians, why do they hate our freedumbs?

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Polimom Says » A pre-coital cigarette says:
    September 1, 2006 at 11:03 am

    […] In retrospect, I’d like to take things a bit slower this time if you don’t mind. It’s not that I’m coy, necessarily — please don’t misunderstand. I’m only human, after all, and those hot words are having an effect. […]

  2. cash advance payday loan software says:
    May 23, 2008 at 3:42 am

    card credit gateway payment credit card payment gateways

    Three orchard bank unsecured credit card bank one credit card offer advance cash on line wireless credit card machine advance cash check credit no

  3. jack russel black and says:
    May 28, 2008 at 8:05 am

    jouer au poker gratuitement

    Are play 7 card stud casino jeux fr poker und regeln jugar seguro portales video poquer

  4. casino venezia online says:
    May 29, 2008 at 5:16 am

    internet craps

    Nowadays regole baccarat baccarat on line i casino online learn to play black jack casino tropez

  5. poker avec argent virtuel says:
    June 2, 2008 at 3:04 am

    tournoi poker en ligne

    S”affermir texas holdem odds tilt poker net gold casino wo poker spielen giochi black jack

  6. poker on line says:
    June 2, 2008 at 8:43 am

    ganancia casino

    Respetuosamente strip poker a telecharger jouer o poker ganar dinero verdadero portal jeux poker tour gratuites www online poker net

  7. poker game says:
    June 2, 2008 at 5:16 pm

    juegos online ruleta

    Non party poker software acheter jeu de poker poker game deutsch http www yachting casino texas holdem wertung

  8. chips di poker says:
    June 3, 2008 at 5:01 pm

    einarmiger bandit online spielen

    No matter casinospiele mit echtem geld online casino craps chips di poker casino spiele download free casino cash no deposit

  9. casino jeux de hasard says:
    June 4, 2008 at 3:15 am

    pai gow poker pagina internet

    Selancer casino euro regeln von poker achat jeu de poker jugar video poquer online gioco keno gratis inlinea

  10. online poker room says:
    June 5, 2008 at 3:42 pm

    kostenlos spielautomaten spielen

    Piu” online casino live online poker room jouer poker sur internet ruleta paginas web guide poker en ligne

  11. casinos on net says:
    June 6, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    tournoi de poker gratuites

    A online poker bonus casinos on net slot maschine tournoi de poker gratuites apostar portales

  12. black jack online says:
    June 8, 2008 at 7:52 am

    gioco in linea

    Overall poker per pc gratis online poker bonus poker gratuites france online poker spielgeld online video poker

  13. play video poker says:
    June 8, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    play video poker

    All”inizio poly poker internet gewinn spiele texas holdem strategie deutsche online poker trucchi per video poker

  14. keno en ligne says:
    June 9, 2008 at 11:04 am

    black and jack

    Prèsde home poker game free video poker download video poker rules party poker bonus apprendre a jouer au poker

  15. free craps says:
    June 13, 2008 at 1:43 am

    slots machines gratis

    Thanks black jack play baccarat online le casino gratuites sans dépot poker tour game online poker cheating

  16. yahoo jeux says:
    June 13, 2008 at 8:39 am

    jugar jack black en linea

    Oft texas holdem shareware craps rules super casino play free slots casino en language online

  17. partie poker net says:
    June 15, 2008 at 10:51 am

    jeu pc poker

    Vedere polly poquer jugar tragamonedas gioco in linea online poker review gioco poker in italiano

  18. poker tip says:
    June 17, 2008 at 5:57 am

    casino online forum

    zumBeispiel les jeux du casino tournoi poker online apostar linea video poker strategy play free casino game

  19. set de poker says:
    June 20, 2008 at 3:06 am

    comment jouer a poker

    Einst play 7 card stud poker jeu de poker virtuel juegos de poker gratis add casino link online progama codigo poker

  20. jugar al instante pagina internet says:
    June 20, 2008 at 2:56 pm

    juego al instante paginas web

    If casino kostenlos spielen forum casino on line play texas holdem online free strip poker live casino video poker

  21. video poker strategy says:
    June 23, 2008 at 7:54 am

    best internet poker

    Here gioco baccarat gratis pc game casino hand held video poker apuestas libre en linea gratis casino

  22. online texas hold em says:
    June 24, 2008 at 4:39 am

    online kasinoportal

    Beitreten telecharger evrest poker poker site online kasinoportal video poker odds online casino free money

  23. poker zum gratis downloaden says:
    June 24, 2008 at 11:54 am

    baccarat regeln

    Enviar gioco keno gratis inlinea card stud coupons gratuites casino jeux poker texas holdem online casino gambling site

  24. video poker game says:
    June 25, 2008 at 2:47 am

    craps online

    Now jeu poker internet video poker odds party poker games holdem poker game online casino guide

  25. play omaha poker says:
    June 25, 2008 at 11:22 pm

    apuestas en linea

    JedeNummervon play omaha poker paradise poker el poker gratis des règles du jeu du poker poker spielregeln download

  26. scarica gioco poker says:
    June 27, 2008 at 6:05 am

    juegos poker descarga gratis

    Contact texas holdem pocket pc double bonus poker download poker on line gratuito jeu flash casino salles de poker en ligne

  27. jugar dados web says:
    June 28, 2008 at 6:13 am

    poker money

    Tanto online casino liste texas holdem odds jugar dados web progama codigo poker multiplayer poker

  28. juegos azar linea says:
    June 28, 2008 at 5:50 pm

    multiplayer video poker

    Dell”uno high stakes poker juego de ruleta casino bonus senza deposito telecharger poker rng play texas holdem free

  29. casino games says:
    June 29, 2008 at 4:34 pm

    3c texas holdem

    Mediante casinos portales internet giochi on line casino poker game online poker 7 card stud juego ruleta de la fortuna

  30. party poker reload bonus says:
    June 30, 2008 at 2:40 am

    online casino site

    Qui poker net com online spiel automat jeux de casino a telecharger online casino site gioco poker da scaricare gratis

  31. best casino bonus says:
    June 30, 2008 at 10:34 am

    texas holdem poker download

    Après texas holdem poker download baccarat rules giocare online mindest einsatz gioco poker on line

  32. bonus casino on net says:
    July 2, 2008 at 6:53 pm

    casino games

    Don”t casino on line american gioco keno gratis in linea online poker for fun forum casino on line bonus casino on net

  33. poker on line bonus says:
    July 3, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    ganar ala ruleta

    Tambien jugar gratis portales internet play poker online online casino ohne einzahlung gratis kasino play video poker

  34. descargas juegos pc says:
    July 3, 2008 at 5:41 pm

    gioco poker scaricare gratis

    Ese internet gewinn spiele online casino bonus ohne einzahlung play poker online poli poquer poker on line bonus

  35. caribbean poker web says:
    July 4, 2008 at 11:25 am

    online poker games

    End”autrestermes juego poker casino internet kasino 7 card stud en ligne poli poquer télécharger gratuitement jeu de poker en ligne

  36. internet poker spiel says:
    July 4, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    online poker law

    Wer poker holdem gratis euro poker gratis full tilt poker online poker law free poker online

  37. american poker says:
    July 6, 2008 at 9:02 am

    free online slots game

    Here are free backgammon download el poker online casino wagering free online craps american poker

  38. juegos de poker gratuitos says:
    July 6, 2008 at 3:03 pm

    no deposit casino bonus

    You online casino promotion craps rules learn to play craps free online slots game juegos poli poker

  39. online casino games says:
    July 7, 2008 at 7:13 am

    casino online com

    Postuler world poker tournament poker de 5 cartas jeu de poker online gratuit poker en ligne flash internet casino online

  40. free casino cash no deposit says:
    July 7, 2008 at 9:05 am

    party poker money

    Au?erdemKontext poker spielen nicht online texas holdem poker spielregeln party poker deposit bonus www poker stars net casino craps

  41. poker online flash says:
    July 7, 2008 at 9:20 pm

    ruleta de la suerte gratis

    Di imparare a giocare a poker i casino online poker freeware best bonus casino ruleta europea portal internet

  42. poker texas holdem says:
    July 8, 2008 at 12:24 am

    best bonus casino

    Palabras casino pagina casino online italiani giochi casino online jugar video poquer internet golden phoenix hotel casino

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Albatrossity - Serengeti Day 3, Round 2 5
Image by Albatrossity (7/19/25)
Donate

Recent Comments

  • AxelFoley on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 19, 2025 @ 9:08pm)
  • JoyceH on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 19, 2025 @ 9:08pm)
  • MagdaInBlack on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 19, 2025 @ 9:08pm)
  • WaterGirl on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 19, 2025 @ 9:05pm)
  • WaterGirl on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 19, 2025 @ 9:04pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

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

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

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

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

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

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

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

Email sent!